The Friend of my Enemy is my Enemy, and believe you me, an Enemy he is!

[FrenchieCat]

I'm staying sane!

Fuck Jane Hamsher!

Grover Glenn Norquist is president of anti-tax advocacy group Americans for Tax Reform. Norquist is a member of the board of directors of the National Rifle Association and the American Conservative Union.

Norquist is best known as the founder Americans for Tax Reform in 1985, at the request of President Ronald Reagan, and has headed the organization ever since. The primary policy goal of Americans for Tax Reform is to reduce the percentage of the GDP consumed by the government. ATR states that it "opposes all tax increases as a matter of principle." Americans for Tax Reform seeks to curtail government spending by supporting Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) legislation and transparency initiatives, and opposing cap-and-trade legislation and Democratic efforts to overhaul health care.

In 1993, Norquist launched his Wednesday Meetings series at ATR headquarters, initially to help fight President Clinton's healthcare plan and eventually becoming one of the most significant institutions in American conservative political organizing.

Norquist traveled to several warzones across the world to help support anti-Soviet guerrilla armies in the second half of the 1980s. He worked with a support network for Col. Oliver North's efforts with the Nicaraguan contras and other insurgencies, in addition to promoting U.S. support for groups including Mozambique's RENAMO and Jonas Savimbi's UNITA in Angola.

Norquist was instrumental in securing early support for then Texas Governor George W. Bush, continuing a decades-long association with Karl Rove. After Bush's election, Norquist was a key figure involved in crafting Bush's tax cuts. The Wall Street Journal's John Fund dubbed him "the Grand Central Station" of conservatism and told The Nation: "It's not disputable" that Norquist was the key to the Bush campaign's surprising level of support from movement conservatives in 2000.

Working with eventual Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, Norquist was one of the co-authors of the 1994 Contract with America, and helped to rally grassroots efforts, which he later chronicled in his bock Rock the House. Norquist also served as a campaign staff member on the 1988, 1992 and 1996 Republican Platform Committees.

Norquist has been noted for his widely quoted quip: "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." Norquist favors the elimination of numerous federal organizations including the Internal Revenue Service, the Food and Drug Administration, Education Department and the National Endowment for the Arts.

He has also stated, "Cutting the government in half in one generation is both an ambitious and reasonable goal. If we work hard we will accomplish this and more by 2025. Then the conservative movement can set a new goal. I have a recommendation: To cut government in half again by 2050". The Americans for Tax Reform mission statement is "The government's power to control one's life derives from its power to tax. We believe that power should be minimized."

Norquist is the author of the book Leave Us Alone: Getting the Government's Hands Off Our Money, Our Guns, Our Lives, published on March 11, 2008 by HarperCollins.

Norquist and Americans for Tax Reform were mentioned in Senate testimony relating to the lobbying scandal for which Abramoff pled guilty in 2006. Norquist has denied claims that he did anything wrong. Records released by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee allege that ATR served as a "conduit" for funds that flowed from Abramoff's clients to surreptitiously finance grass-roots lobbying campaigns. A second group Norquist was involved with, the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, received about $500,000 in Abramoff client funds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist

[Jim Sagle]

1. Joining Norquist to pressure Obama is like joining Kenn Starr to pressure Bill Clinton.

Not smart, and not progressive.

[nofurylike]

2. absolutely, FrenchieCat! very well said! thank you for your

staying sane, and for posting in ways that help others of us do so, as well.


peace and solidarity

[POAS]

3. Nice work Frenchie

Below zero recs, a true sign of a nerve hit squarely.

[FrenchieCat]

5. "They" see my name as the poster, and they unrec automatically.....

I proved that easily!


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x9177708

Only ended up with a sum total of 2 recs, but only once the thread was moved to the lounge!
Funny thing.

[POAS]

6. That's what you get for not joining the

"Grover is one of us" crowd!

[FrenchieCat]

7. I know! No worship from the Kool Kids for me!

:cry:

I'm like Honey to the Unrec'ing Bee crew!

[POAS]

8. Yea but think what happened to all the

"kool kids" in the movie "Heathers". Not a pretty image.

[Adelante]

9. You are a honey

And it beats being a Fleabagger.:hug:

[FrenchieCat]

11. Thanks. I like Honey!

:)

Hope your holidays are going well my dear! :hi:
Mine have been pretty good. My girls bought me a fancy drill!
I thought that only happened in the movies! LOL!

[niceypoo]

67. 'Unrec' drama queen

Don't be so hypersensitive and people will take you more seriously. Unrec drama is so Sarah Palin.

[nofurylike]

4. and k&r - though unrec's vanished my rec. not unexpectedly. it

is almost becoming a validator, those unrec's! we'll be feeling proud of them!


peace and solidarity

[Prism]

10. Still with the right-wing tactics?

It's been over a week now. And on Christmas! For shame.

This entire Hamsher incident is so entirely Bushian in its conception and execution. Republicans used to do this under Bush all the time. They knew they had enemies on the Left. They were never entirely sure who. Just, you know, enemies. So, whenever anyone started looking a little too closely at what the administration was doing, they'd pick some not-too-important person and go to town on them. They would make that person the Symbol of the Enemy and devote crazily disproportionate attention and scorn to them. Rush and Hannity and the entire noise machine would spend a week or two, and then you'd never hear about it again. For a more recent example, see what they did to Van Jones.

So it is here. We could be paying attention to the President or Congress - you know, the people actually in a position to influence things. But no! A blogger said something, damnit, and it's the most outrageous thing we've ever heard!

Rather than casting any kind of critical eye whatsoever at the actual lawmakers and policy crafters, some internet not-too-important consumes all thought and effort available.

It's really kind of hilarious, but also slightly sad and pathetic at the same time. Because the Obama devotees are so entirely earnest and serious about it. Seriously, a post with a burning cross comparing Hamsher to the Klan! That's totally crazy!

But, you get down with your Rove selves. I know this is Big Important Stuff.

And just a note, Frenchie. The constant carping about the "Kool Kids" really only serves to display an odd little prick of insecurity that seems to be nagging the hell out of you. Allow me to put your mind at ease. Those of us who are critical of the administration do not in fact have an exclusive lunch table.

We do, however, have a secret bar we occasionally get tanked in. You know when it happens, because GD goes crazier than usual around a little after midnight.

Anyway, regardless of all of the above, Happy Holidays.

[FrenchieCat]

13. When one gets unrec'ed for saying hello in a thread......

one can say what they think about it...I do believe.

and yes, your imagery conveying kids at their exclusive lunch table seems about right,
as there has been similarities with what I've read on these boards,
and elementary school playground bullying.....

As for me being insecure, you don't know me well at all.
Being insecured for what goes on, on a message board,
is not high on my priority TO-do list.

Regardless, happy holidays to you as well.

(was this post done "on" Christmas, or the day after?) :shrug:

[Prism]

15. Tomorrow is never arrives until I've slept =) n/t

[inna]

45. +1

[cornermouse]

12. Resulting in an ever increasingly narrower point of view

and a tent eventually occupied by only a "special" few. Knock yourself out.

[FrenchieCat]

14. Sorry, but Norquist is in that other tent.......

the one that fucked us hard without relief for 8 long ass years.

[cornermouse]

16. Hamsher is trying to wake people up.

...Didn't you say you're a preacher's wife (waiting for husband to finish writing sermon, I think it was?) last weekend?

[FrenchieCat]

17. Hamsher ain't doing nothing constructive

other than trying to bring down a health care bill that was voted on by every Senator that wasn't a Republican.

Yes, I'm a preacher's wife....but I'm not a preacher.
It would be like if you spouse was a doctor.

[cornermouse]

19. Interesting.

[suzie]

52. +1

[windbreeze]

69. perhaps some need to do a search on Mr.Nordquist...and read what

he's all about...I wouldn't want to find myself in a tent with him either, as I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him....but then I don't understand all the "chess playing" going on....I wish we could do things in a direct manner...instead of having to take a run through the bushes all the time...wb

[ima_sinnic]

18. what is yr take on "cabinet of rivals" & soured(?) "friendship" w/"enemy" Judd Gregg?

that has been very "constructive," wouldn't you say, and exactly what the voters voted for?

[Clio the Leo]

20. You might have a point...

... if Gregg were Secretary of the Commerce.

Otherwise, no one would argue that Hillary isn't doing an excellent job.

[ima_sinnic]

21. Gregg was the initial pick, so let's not pretend the association wasn't intended

or was his refusal to take the spot part of the multidimensional chess game where he and Obama agreed to stage it? but that would take an unsavory association, wouldn't it?

[Clio the Leo]

22. Someone's had too much eggnog.

The point of putting Gregg in the Cabinet was so that he could be replaced with a Democratic Senator (so we wouldn't have to worry about Lieberman.) ..... But if you want to think there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll, go right ahead.

[ima_sinnic]

24. so Obama's cabinet picks are based on political expediency & influence

rather than on who might be his best advisors, and serve We The People best. Should I be surprised? Apparently Lieberman is now so powerful that the president's cabinet picks have to be "sacrificed" to try to unseat him. This is the guy who ran for VP on the Democratic ticket in 2000--and people blame Nader!
Also no surprise that Obama DOES "influence" Congress.

keep spinning.

[Clio the Leo]

27. keep hurling hyperbole....

.... and keep kicking this thread in the process.

[ima_sinnic]

29. I voted for the "democrat" to serve the people, not play footsie w repukes

and I was shocked and saddened at *'s constant partisan BS--it appears the "democrat" is no better--everything is just one big political calculus, whatever will benefit "the party," which does NOT equate to good government or serving the people or anything that even involves We The People--except when they are needed to "vote." Somehow it's okay for Obama and the rest of the "democrats" to associate and make alliances with "enemies" for their little political games (when do they have time to actually do any GOVERNING with all this "strategizing" about who's going to outmaneuver whom?) but progressives who strike up similar alliances are reviled and denigrated and pissed on--all the better to distract from what's really going on and to minimize and disrupt the threat to their convenient little system those alliances represent. But let's not be under any delusion that "democrat" and "republican" actually even mean anything any more.

Looking forward to the one-party system collapse and the guillotine for all politicians on the take for personal gain.

[Mass]

23. By this principle, Gregg being my ennemy, Obama is too?

Just asking, given Obama offered him a cabinet position, or is there such a thing as strategy.

Not agreeing with Hamsher here, but trying to get your reasoning (and I did not agree with Obama when he offered this position to Gregg, but I do not remember you complaining that he was offering a seat to somebody who is about as conservative and small government as Norquist)

[mcablue]

25. That's a logical fallacy

Rarely is our enemy wrong 100% of the timme. Your opposition to Rahm's investigation is based on an ad-hominem attack and misses the point.

[donco6]

26. Talk about Republican talking points -

That one's a classic GWB.

But you run with it, Frenchie.

BTW, is Jane the new litmus test for you guys? Your TPM must be headlining that issue every day.

[Bluenorthwest]

28. I recall your passionate defenses of Obama's alliances with

the likes of Donnie McClurkin and Rick Warren and Kribyjon Caldwell. I can not stand Grover. Jane's political work I do not know well at all. But if there is a rule for the goose, it applies to the gander. If if it alright to make alliances with hate preachers then them's the rules.
Why do you see it as so different when Obama makes use of right wing bigots, as compared to when Jane makes use of right wing bigots?

Explain to the best of your ability. You are on record defending the use of both of those men. I recall the term 'bona fides' being used as part of the reasons for McClurkin. Explain. Feel free.
Of course you will not. Because the words well, they can not be controlled and you might not type 'folks' and type that other word. But you could at least try to explain how many rule books you use, and who gets which one.

To be clear, Jane is a person I knew of in her former career, and I did not like much. Politically I know little about her, save what I have heard on Hartmann once or twice. Grover is the devil incarnate, but so is Rick Warren and Donnie in my view. To be blunt, I'd stand with mean old Jane over Donnie and Rick, just because she does not think I should be executed as those others seem to. Donnie says gay people are 'trying to kill our children'. He was Obama's hand chosen surrogate and host. And he said that. He declared war on my community. And you defended his use in the campaign.
So this all seems like hypocrisy to me. People siding with Donnie, or with Jane. I don't like either of them. I wold not defend either of them. But you defended one of them. And I wonder why that is, in light of your current position on alliances with rotten people?

[ima_sinnic]

30. +++1 for inconvenient questions (nt)

[Bluenorthwest]

33. The truth is ofen inconvenient

[jonnyblitz]

31. good post! nt

[Bluenorthwest]

34. And no reply. Of course.

[dave29]

35. I have a simple answer.

Obama came to office trying to unite the country. The country would have none of it. He reached out to those who had made questionable statements in the past. None of them had spent their professional careers trying to destroy Democrats. Some of them had said terrible things about gays, about progressives, about just about anyone on our side. I recognize that. He tried to include Rpublicans in his cabinet because he said he would do so. He was stabbed in the back. On the Warren issue, the gay community has not forgiven him in many quarters. That is that, and I'm sure he recognizes it.

I would ask you to look at the thread below, however, since we are drawing comparisons on alliances, and tell me that Hamsher has not aligned herself (mind you Obama is not "aligned" with Rick Warren on anything save maybe giving to charity) with someone who has as little or less respect for the LGBT community as Warren -- and on top of that -- actively works to destroy everything else we believe in.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x91544

so we are now seeing what I observe to be rank hypocrisy amongst those who say it's OK for Jane to do it, but not Obama (even though the circumstances were completely different). I also draw a distinction between working with elected officials and using figures from the community to try and draw people together, not for the purposes of tearing people down. Not to mention the hypocrisy of those who will do anything to work against our Democrats in Congress to the point of trying to kick Bernie Sanders from the Senate, but are fine with sitting and holding hands with Grover Norquist just to make life a little difficult for Rahm Emmannuel. Talk about hating.

[Prism]

38. No sale

"They're coming after your children!" is not merely a "questionable statement." It's a vile philosophy that is at the root of the hatred, abuse, inequality, and violence LGBTers have faced in this country.

You're not really seeing much hypocrisy, at least not from the LGBTers. I don't think I've seen any of us agree with Jane's idea to ally with Norquist or Schafly. I quite vigorously disagree with her doing so. However, I find the reactions and rationales behind this coordinated opposition to the Jane campaign so very strange from those who vocally and vigorously approved of any alliance with homophobia whenever it occurred.

It's the hypocrisy we're pointing out, the true and undeniable emptiness that this unwavering, uncritical support of any politician necessarily engenders. This OP in particular gave long, high volume, relentless praise to the President's repeated friendliness and common cause with some of the most virulent hatemongers in America.

Personally, if the President can cozy up to hatred to forge political harmony and extend faith-based nonsense as matter of policy, Jane can get on with her misguided self in order to obtain more progressive policies and health care.

At least she has a true liberal point, whereas the President's only aim seemed to be some sort of bipartisan, ass-covering, simperingly weak approval from people who will never ever approve of him. He ought to be working out his daddy issues elsewhere, and not on the back of my community. He slapped LGBTers in the face, maintained faith-based policies, appointed religionists to various positions, and for what?

They still hate him.

And they still hate us.

At least Jane is looking for some kind of sensible return on her investment. Obama just had ass that he reared up wherever gay people were walking. And this OP and many other highly visible posters ardently approved.

[dave29]

43. Jane is not working with Norquist on Healthcare Reform

She is working with him to attack Rahm Emmannuel, someone whom many here seem to think is coming for their children, and the subject of what appears to be coordinated rage from one sector or another (from my perspective) at any given moment on this board. He is the boogeyman for much of the left, and is frequently pointed to and dredged up in many a random subject area he has had little to no involvement with. This is where I see the hypocrisy on this particular subject... that those who support our President are resoundingly attacked for "coordinated attacks" against Jane. Whatever. Everyone has their boogeymen. For me Grover falls into this category.

I agree, people should be able to align themselves with whomever they wish, at their peril. But I see some very obvious differences in the purposes of Obama's "alignments" as compared to Janes.

So, to summarize, I do not see Janes investment as sensible in any regard. I do not think we are hypocrites to stand up to Jane on this, or any of her other irrational moves in the last week or so. I am happy to debate healthcare well into the night as I have proven by staying up til 4am on a work night to argue a point. As are many of the posters you seem to be singling out. The argument that she is trying to do something good is negated, in my mind, by the complete and total disregard Grover has for the entire progresive community, not just a subset.

[Prism]

60. We agree in part

I'm with you when you say you do not see Jane's investment as sensible. I believe she is acting out of anger and making an unwise, ill-considered alliance. Anger is only useful when it can be channeled into practical, effective politics. I see Jane's actions as ineffective and simply bad politics. She's eroding her credibility with behavior that is very highly unlikely to produce any kind of tangible result.

The perils of lashing out.

However, I'm in sympathy with her anger. I do not much care for Rahm-style politics. Being from Chicago, I know exactly what he's always been about and despaired a touch when the President tapped him as CoS. It set a poor tone for his administration that has met exactly those low expectations I have for someone like Emmanuel. I do believe Rahm is willing and advising that the Left be thrown overboard at the first sign of intransigence to his goal of "put your name on anything, just so you can say you got a win."

It's a very Chicago thing to do, and I think it is a very wrong-headed approach to national problems, especially when we've the mountain of problems we do.

That said, I still find the massive campaign against Jane a very Rovian tactic. Pick a symbol, attach them to a generalized "opponent", smear away.

And that's precisely what this administration and its more enthusiastic supporters have done. I think they know the policy isn't as defensible as they like to claim in the media. If it was, they'd not resort to this.

[dave29]

68. We could debate Rove all day

I have written on him (published here at DU, and used by the Kerry campaign), and worked on a film based on one of the few books about him.

What is happening to Jane was brought on herself. Rove takes someone like Max Cleland and ties him to Osama bin Laden, and he does it with glee, with massive funding brought in by people like Grover Norquist. He fills the airways with his hate filled message and gets the votes of people unwilling or unable to see the truth through the product being sold to them.

What you are seeing with Jane is not organized or funded, rather a massive push back against a really really bad idea.... on an internet message board. I hate apples/apples comparisons because they are just too rare to find... and this case, in my humble opinion you have an apple, and a tennis shoe.

Rove would take someone like Obama and tie him to "the Chicago way" (which it would appear you are adopting via your distrust of Rahm). Fine I get it -- you don't like Rahm hanging with Obama.

I don't like Jane hanging with Grover.

And I would remind you Grover and Rove are really really close.

We simply do not agree on Obama. I do not see him as "doing Rahms bidding" as so many here seem to suggest. Obama is doing what he believes needs to be done to make progress, regardless of the increment. And we do not even remotely agree that he is trying to get his name on as much as possible. It is his detractors that call it "Obamacare" for example, when he did not even write the bill.

Yes, in these times we need major change. He campaigned on it. The country itself is so entrenched, it has yet to give way. As someone suggested in another thread, our new emperor has no clothes. Obama is not an emperor. He is a President, with all of the limitations that brings with it. His job is Governanace, as described in the United States Constitution. He is doing his best to play the part.

[ima_sinnic]

46. +++1 excellent, you nailed it

when the "democrats," and Obama in particular, make these alliances with the biggest hate-mongering shit-heels, disrespecting those who voted for him in good faith that his "fierce advocacy" really meant something, it's freaking fantastic or something to the quo-lovers (aka quobaggers). Funny they've had no problem with any of the scumbuckets whom Obama has so pathetically courted, like a jilted lover, while those who truly did love him have been scorned and treated with disdain.

You said a bunch of stuff I wish I'd said, better than I could've said it.

[butterfly77]

57. Also where was Hamsher..

when the teabaggers first appeared on the scene. It didn't seem as if anyone had the Presidents back but, now she wants to get people together with her damn petition or whatever it is.

If I was the Pres I wouldn't trust the base either because he doesn't know who in the hell the base is,especially since these bluedogs have been popping up all over the place and his so called base is never there to back him up against these damn teabaggers..

This is why the teabaggers now think they are the majority with the help of the media...

[ruggerson]

51. Great post - FRENCHIE what's your response?

I'm no fan of Hamsher's either. If I were in the Senate or House I would vote for this bill, as I think it incrementally moves us forward, much as I don't like how it got watered down and how the entire process bent to the whims of a very few, non cooperative Senators.

But the hypocrisy here is undeniable.

[freddie mertz]

63. Great question, a cowardly chorus of crickets from the OPer.

I am not surprised.

[ipaint]

32. That's funny.

You think all the liberals and liberal groups that have partnered with norquist for years, just like jane is doing, don't know norquist's background or how to deal with him. :rofl:

That's your point? Liberals are stupid and naive not to respect the awesome dark power of norquist therefore should only be willing victims of corporate control and leave the fighting to our current "meet them in the middle" administration. The same strategy by the way that has failed for thirty years and counting.

Well better send this wiki article and your warning to the aclu. They are obviously not sufficiently terrified of him.

[dave29]

36. Until Jane aligned with him I knew of no other alliances with Norquist

Yes, I would have screamed a lot sooner had I known. I think it's a very very poorly conceived alliance. Did you know about these other alliances before Jane hooked up with Grover? Or are you just now defending them because it conveniently supports an old fight you can't let go of?

[Undercurrent]

37. ?

"all the liberals and liberal groups that have partnered with norquist for years"

Dates?
Names?
Causes?

[ipaint]

39. Here are are some of them.

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-conservatives-civil-rights-groups-agree-capps-ii-raises-serious-privacy-and-s

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/grover-norquists-letter-congressman-sensenbrenner-expressing-deep-concerns-regardi

http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/letter-grover-norquist-support-prof-craker

----------------------------------

"Grover Norquist and I agree on very little. However, we both believe that the Bill of Rights is endangered by the excesses of the USA Patriot Act and other Department of Justice initiatives post 9/11. We will seize this opportunity and demonstrate that people from across the ideological spectrum agree that the rights of innocent people are at risk from unnecessary and unwarranted invasions of privacy and loss of basic constitutional rights."

WHAT: "Strange Bedfellows: Left Meets Right to Defend the Bill of Rights"

WHEN: Sunday, October 19 from 11:45 a.m. to 1:15 p.m.

WHERE: Hilton Silver Spring Hotel, 8727 Colesville Road, Silver Spring, MD 20910

WHO:

-- Ralph G. Neas, president, People For the American Way

-- Grover Norquist, president, Americans for Tax Reform

-- James X. Dempsey, executive director, Center for Democracy and Technology

-- David Keene, chairman, American Conservative Union

-- Alec Baldwin, moderator

http://www.commondreams.org/news2003/1010-03.htm


----------------------------------
December 3, 2009

Dear Members of the U.S. Senate:

In the last two years, the Federal Reserve Board has lent several trillion dollars to banks and other private companies, financial and non-financial institutions through a series of special lending facilities. The total amount of loans made through facilities exceeds the annual budget of the United States. In addition, it guaranteed trillions of dollars of various assets and also made hundreds of billions of dollars available to several foreign central banks through currency swap arrangements.

At this point, neither the public nor members of Congress has any information about who benefited from these loans, guarantees, and swap arrangements. There is no information available on the specific terms of the loans – the interest rate charged, the collateral posted, and whether or not they were repaid. There is no information available on how it was decided who would qualify for the Fed’s help and who would be denied assistance.

Almost three quarters of the members of the House of Representatives have co-sponsored a bill calling for an audit of the Federal Reserve Board. This audit will allow Congress to assess how the Fed, under the leadership of its chairman Ben Bernanke, performed in this crisis and whether it acted appropriately in its disbursement of an enormous amount of money and guarantees.

Without this audit, Congress lacks the information it needs to evaluate Mr. Bernanke’s performance. Therefore the Senate should delay action on Mr. Bernanke’s reappointment until an audit of the Fed’s books takes place, the results are made available to the Congress and Mr. Bernanke answers a serious inquiry into the actions he took.

Sincerely,

Ryan Alexander, president, Taxpayers for Common Sense
Chris Bowers, founder, OpenLeft
Dean Baker, co-director, Center for Economic and Policy Research
Robert Borosage, co-director, Campaign for America’s Future
Danielle Brian, executive director, Project On Government Oversight
Mark Calabria, director of financial regulation studies, Cato Institute
Mark Cohen, executive director, Government Accountability Project
Tom DeWeese, president, American Policy Center
Tyler Durden, founder, Zero Hedge
Sandra Fabry, executive director, Center for Fiscal Accountability
James Kenneth Galbraith, economist
Adam Green, co-founder, Progressive Change Campaign Committee
George Goehl, executive director, National People’s Action
Jane Hamsher, founder, FireDogLake
Gary Kalman, Washington director, Public Interest Research Group
Matt Kibbe, president, FreedomWorks
Grover Norquist, president, Americans for Tax Reform
Duane Parde, president, National Taxpayers Union
Aaron Swartz, co-founder, Progressive Change Campaign Committee
Phyllis Schlafly, president, Eagle Forum
John Tate, president, Campaign for Liberty
John Taylor, CEO, National Community Reinvestment Coalition
Stephanie Taylor, co-founder, Progressive Change Campaign Committee
Robert Weissman, president, Public Citizen
John Whitehead, president, The Rutherford Institute


LEFT-RIGHT COALITION SAYS SENATE BANKING COMMITTEE MUST DELAY VOTE ON BERNANKE RENOMINATION
http://www.ourfuture.org/news-release/2009125115/left-right-coalition-says-senate-banking-committee-must-delay-vote-bernanke-



I'll post more as I find them.

[Undercurrent]

56. Thank you.

While I don't consider the ACLU a liberal group, but rather a defender of the Constitution for all of us, (and what they do is GOOD for all of our rights, like when they defended the rights of the KKK to march it defends ALL of our First Amendment rights), I appreciate your effort.

Have a nice holiday season!

[ipaint]

40. And what the called for investigation is all about-

Ed Kelly , the inspector general was conducting an investigation into fannie and freddie and their part of the housing mess, which of course leads directly to Rahm's time on the board in 2000 and 2001, when Obama up and fired Kelly as IG, demoting him to an auditor. Obama also denied a freedom of information request by the chicago tribune to take a look at the minutes of the freddie board when Rahm was on it. He claimed it was commercial info even though it was federal government entity when rahm was on the board.
Rahm "can't remember" what happened when he was on the board.

Obama was able to demote Kelly because of a loophole in a law written and co-sponsored by none other than Rahm, the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.
Obama never replaced the fired inspector general, 16 months and counting and lo and behold on christmas eve gave fannie and freddie a blank check for bailouts through 2012. Fannie and freddie are responsible for 6 trillion in loans.

No oversight, no accountability, no congress, no FOIA.



A bit of background about Rahm's time spent on the freddie board-

Rahm Emanuel's profitable stint at mortgage giant

The board met no more than six times a year. Unlike most fellow directors, Emanuel was not assigned to any of the board's working committees, according to company proxy statements. Immediately upon joining the board, Emanuel and other new directors qualified for $380,000 in stock and options plus a $20,000 annual fee, records indicate.

On Emanuel's watch, the board was told by executives of a plan to use accounting tricks to mislead shareholders about outsize profits the government-chartered firm was then reaping from risky investments. The goal was to push earnings onto the books in future years, ensuring that Freddie Mac would appear profitable on paper for years to come and helping maximize annual bonuses for company brass.

The accounting scandal wasn't the only one that brewed during Emanuel's tenure.

During his brief time on the board, the company hatched a plan to enhance its political muscle. That scheme, also reviewed by the board, led to a record $3.8 million fine from the Federal Election Commission for illegally using corporate resources to host fundraisers for politicians. Emanuel was the beneficiary of one of those parties after he left the board and ran in 2002 for a seat in Congress from the North Side of Chicago.

The board was throttled for its acquiescence to the accounting manipulation in a 2003 report by Armando Falcon Jr., head of a federal oversight agency for Freddie Mac. The scandal forced Freddie Mac to restate $5 billion in earnings and pay $585 million in fines and legal settlements. It also foreshadowed even harder times at the firm.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-rahm-emanuel-profit-26-mar26,0,5682373.story


As Cenk said-

That’s Politics 101.

Now I wouldn’t be in favor of it if they didn’t make legitimate points. But they do make legitimate points. And those are good questions. Rahm has to answer them. But on a political level, this is the kind of thing you’ve gotta do to say “you know what, you can’t only appease the right wing. I have to make sure that I appease the right wing and the left wing.” Especially because the left wing elected you, they’re the ones who gave you the votes.

So if it wiped the smug smile off of Rahm Emanuel’s face, and his dismissive attitude about all the people who voted for Barack Obama, well then it’s a great step in the right direction.

And don’t think it doesn’t have consequences — Jane Hamsher is catching massive heat from the left for doing this. How dare you join up with a right winger, how dare you damage Democrats politically.

Listen. If you don’t have the stones to go after the Democrats, they’re never going to listen to you. They don’t listen to reason, they listen to power. So Jane’s approach is definitely the right approach. As long as she’s got her ducks in order, and she’s not going with nonsense, she’s going with real concerns, that’s definitely the way to go.

Okay, that’s hard ball. And if you’re not willing to play it, you’re going to lose on every policy issue and on every political issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Et-hdHe7kew&feature=player_embedded

[inna]

47. +1

thank you!

[WeDidIt]

41. You make sense, therefore the Firebaggers must destroy you

much like how the Birthers must destroy any and all who point out how batshit insane Orly Taitz is.

[Oldtimeralso]

42. K & R and proud to be # 5 n/t

[jgraz]

44. "Joe Lieberman's a man with a good heart, who cares about the working families of America"

-- Presidential Candidate Barack Obama, endorsing Joe Lieberman for Senate.

[dave29]

48. Look who is pointing the other way now

LOOK OVER HERE
:rofl:

[jgraz]

49. Again, a basic grasp of logic would serve you well.

But, nice of you to admit you've been trying to distract us from the truth.

[dave29]

50. sure, anytime I can be of service

.
:rofl:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7311728#7312088

[jenmito]

53. K&R. And don't worry about the unrecs.

They're automatically given by the haters no matter what you post. (I saw that you already know this.) :hi:

[ruggerson]

54. Ok, apply your subject line to this

and see how that works out for you.

[butterfly77]

55. Kick &Recommended!

[ShortnFiery]

58. I'm very disappointed. Not only with the animosity but also with the IMO, lack of creativity. eom

[totodeinhere]

59. By your logic, Obama is my enemy.

His buddies Rick Warren and Donnie McClurkin come to mind.

[Kltpzyxm]

61. Hmmmm

Using that logic then Obama is your enemy.

Unless you consider Donnie McClurkin a friend.

[freddie mertz]

62. I think we could benefit by a moratorium on anti-Hamsher threads, if only for one day.

I find the extremity of the hatred in most of them to be extremely disturbing.

This one is a case in point.

[RepublicanElephant]

64. k&r

SUPREME COURT.

that is all.

[backscatter712]

65. By allying with Norquist, Hamsher became the left's Orly Taitz.

Just completely batshit. You'd have to be out of your mind to ally with a reptile like Grover Norquist.

[nookiemonster]

66. Damn skippy!

The Republicans have absolutely no desire to further this country. Do you really think that Grover wouldn't sabotage our party? I can't believe that this "partnership" is even an option.

Just my $0.02

[PurityOfEssence]

70. Obama hangs out with Powell and says nice things about Reagan...

How's that fit with this worldview?

[Cha]

71. grover norquist is a scaredy little punk.

Cross post GD

trumad (1000+ posts) Wed Dec-23-09 09:47 PM
Original message

Uh Jane---You've gone a bit to far with this Grover partnership.

"Here's what Paul Krugman wrote about your new Pal Grover:"

Why do I want to see movement conservatism crushed? Partly because the movement is fundamentally undemocratic; its leaders don’t accept the legitimacy of opposition. Democrats will only become acceptable, declared Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, once they “are comfortable in their minority status.” He added, “Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant, but when they’ve been fixed, then they are happy and sedate.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7311128

[apocalypsehow]

72. Kick. n/t.