Thursday Open Thread (Christmas Eve 2009)

Right-wing activist Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform and Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake.com are teaming up to demand that Attorney General Eric Holder investigate White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel for -- drumroll please -- corrupt practices involving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Oh, and they want Rahm to resign as well.

Unfortunately for Norquist and Hamsher, they sound a little bit more like Glenn Beck and Roger Ailes than Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Their allegation -- that Emmanuel and the White House are not only covering up past corrupt practices but are also creating an $800 billion slush fund with which they can carry out even more corruption -- is reminiscent of the fanciful allegations that Bill Clinton killed Vince Foster and Ron Brown.

Unlike the efforts to push the envelope on health reform, advancing this conspiracy theory is not the kind of thing that helps the progressive movement. Consider:

1.Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are key elements in the right-wing narrative about the recession. Their script goes something like this: ACORN, Fannie, and Freddie worked with the Democratic Congress to pressure banks to lend to "risky" borrowers, using the Community Reinvestment Act as their leverage. This storyline is totally false, but wingers love it because it not only absolves the financial and real estate industries of responsibility for the financial crisis, but it puts the blame squarely on the backs of blacks and Latinos. Absent evidence, lending credibility to the this right-wing shibboleth is a great disservice.
2.There are precious few reasons for progressives to partner with someone like Grover Norquist. As Hamsher herself wrote, when Grover Norquist called Barack Obama "John Kerry with a tan" he was engaged in the kind of race-baiting that has been the hallmark of Republican politics since the civil rights era. Moreover, even if these allegations were credible, why partner with someone who has his own ties to corruption, specifically the Jack Abramoff scandal.
3.Finally, and arguably most importantly, this smells an awful lot like a Ken Starr-style witch hunt all over again -- except even more divorced from reality. The key point here is that an investigation of the sort Hamsher and Norquist want would be a massive burden on a White House that is already struggling with enormous problems with no end in sight. Does anybody think that tying the administration up in knots with a politically-motivated investigation will help get a public option enacted or pass immigration reform? Will it help strengthen the economy or move us towards alternate energy?
Bottom-line: there's no question that the White House has work to do when it comes to achieving progressive goals, and there's no doubt that holding their feet to the fire is a good thing, but this kind of stuff won't help us achieve any progressive goals. It's understandable that Fox or the GOP would want to push it, but pushing it from the left is sheer nonsense.

...Her hatred has trumped reality and as a result, she embraces Norquist and the right-wing because they also oppose the Senate Bill and the agenda of President Obama. She admits as much in her defense of her alliance with Norquist:

...most "liberals" who work at institutions can’t step out and take a shot at Rahm, because Rahm would take it out on their organizations. That leaves the people on the right — those out of Rahm’s reach — who can be called upon to get the media "heft" you need to call attention to an issue...

Oh yes, another right wing meme endorsed, the Chicago way. Obama and Rahm are gangsters who will whack you if you get out of line and so, poor Jane is forced to make common cause and embrace right wing myth after myth and meme after meme. WTF.

Now, one can follow Ms. Hamsher if you wish, but you should do so with your eyes wide open. You can not make an active alliance with people dedicated to destroying a progressive agenda—by any means necessary—and then pretend that you're doing something to promote a progressive agenda. Once you decide to sign onto Grover's agenda, I’m afraid that you can only be his useful idiot.

As far as I am concerned, an active alliance with Norquist—on his terms and promoting his spin and agenda—is a bridge too far. If you do not see this issue that way, fine. Whatever. I will hope for your return to the reality based community, but in the meantime I will take anything you say with a big grain of salt.

The corruption of Grover Norquist is massive, deep and (IMHO) evil. Yes, Jane Hamsher has done some good things, but making common cause with Norquist is despicable and indefensible. I for one can not go there. I know way too much about Norquist. As of this point, I just have to turn my back on Jane Hamsher and discount as useless her advice on any issue.

...And the heart of her alliance with Norquist is the fact that she is lending her support and credibility to the conservative conspiracy theory that the financial meltdown was caused by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae lending money to poor people through the Community Investment Act and Community Banks. It is an article of faith among conservatives that Rahm Emanuel, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama forced Freddie and Fannie to engaged in risky loans and that these two mortgage giants forced the big banks to do the same. And then the system crashed. See, in wing-nut world everything bad that happened to the economy was caused by poor people taking advantage of the system. This is a scandal that the wing-nuts want exposed just like they want that whole birth certificate thing exposed, and the ACORN thing exposed, and the death panel thing exposed, and the government’s dirty hands on your Medicare thing exposed, and the socialist takeover of America exposed, and the... WTF is she thinking...

First, I have to say that I did a spit take when I read that Norquist describes what he does at Americans for Tax Reform as being the "conservative head of a transparency foundation". Now that is some bold spin completely at odds with reality, but I digress.

It is odd and funny that the letter is only signed by Hamsher and Norquist. And yet, in her defense of this action, Ms Hamsher points to a number of other progressive efforts over the years that Norquist signed onto. There is a big difference that Hamsher is trying to sweep under the rug by grouping her actions with the other progressive efforts that had included Norquist as a signatory. Her alliance with Norquist is fundamentally different than the other efforts that she cites in her defense.

The biggest difference is that the other examples she cites were driven by a progressive organization. Norquist was just another person signing on to get aboard their bus. He was just another name, among many, endorsing a letter. It was not Grover’s letter. It was not Grover’s core agenda and he had reasons that made sense within the scope of his conservative agenda each time he joined one of those efforts.

In the case of the letter that Jane Hamsher signed onto, she decided to get on Grover's bus and endorse his agenda. You can read the letter above. It basically is a way for the wingnuts to try and gin up a scandal about poor people getting loans. It is an effort fueled by their manufactured "populist rage". Ms Hamsher has let her rage (and her "rage envy") sweep her into an embrace of Grover’s agenda and now she gets to be his token "liberal" stooge in this attack on a progressive agenda concerning housing policy and community banking. Finding a "progressive voice" to support a conservative attack is a tactic that Grover has used over and over again in his forty years of working to destroy progressives and their agenda.

For all of her bluster and name calling, Hamsher is just a passenger on Grover's train and she is actively giving her support to the right wing's myth that the financial meltdown was caused by Fannie and Freddie lending money to poor people...

...As I read the Diary steam began to flow from my ears. I could not believe what I was reading, so I went to check the source material. The Atlantic had an item about it and a copy of the letter that Jane Hamsher and Grover Norquist sent to the Attorney General. Now I was spitting mad. As I read the letter I could only repeat WTF, WTF, WTF over and over again...

Grover Norquist is a lifelong Right-Wing warrior. Destroying all progressives and any progressive/liberal agenda is his life’s work. He is very good at and has been finding useful idiots to help him divide and conquer progressives for over thirty years.

Norquist started this work with Jack Abramoff at his side. One party rule has always been their goal and Democrats and liberals have always been their blood enemies. Destroying progressives and everything we believe is their life's work. It is what they do.

Grover is deeply connected to Abramoff. Perhaps nobody goes back as far with Jack as Norquist.

Back in 1978 they took over the College Republicans in Massachusetts. In 1980, using an absentee ballot scam, Jack and Grover delivered enough ballots to win the state for Reagan. The two came to DC as stars of the conservative movement. Both played a role in the Iran-Contra scandal and both worked for the South African Secret Police through the front group, the International Freedom Foundation (IFF).


...These two created Ralph Reed and inflicted him upon the world and they spawned a host of other lobbyists, activists, media whores, think tankers, staffers and politicians that make up the extreme conservative movement in America. Jack Abramoff’s ability to lobby and be successful as the point of the spear for the K Street Project depended upon Norquist and his weekly gathering of DC conservatives (Jack’s in jail, but these weekly meetings go on—perhaps Ms. Hamsher will be Grover’s featured guest at a future meeting). The sweatshops, sexshops, human trafficking and systematic labor abuse on the Marianas Islands have Grover Norquist to thank for their protection by Republicans just as much as they have Abramoff to thank (and Jack kicked back funds to Grover as part of the circle of "thank yous"). Norquist should be in jail, but he was protected by McCain, Rove, Bush and Congress. Now he is still out on the streets of DC and making fresh "alliances" with gullible and foolish people within the progressive movement. Sadly, Jane Hamsher is one of those foolish people..

I just do not know where to begin with such crap. She is forced to work with Norquist because progressives are too weak and lame to work with because we do not follow her blindly on the attack? Really? WTF. Her alliance with Norquist is based on "principles"? Really? Like what? The only thing she seems to outline is that she hates Emanuel and thinks that Obama is as bad or worse than Bush and that anybody who disagrees with her framing is a sellout, corporate loving Obamabot or something. Really? WTF...

Nader feels ignored:


“This is what I meant a year ago when I said the next year will determine whether Barack Obama will be an Uncle Tom groveling before the demands of the corporations.”

Charming.

Bernie Sanders isn't a Democrat, he's an independent who caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate. He calls himself a socialist. According to Progressive Punch, he's the 12th most progressive member of the Upper Body. They rank him as first or tied for first on health care, opposing corporate subsidies, education and the arts, fair taxation, family planning, housing, labor rights, and issues of war and peace. The rankings at Progressive Punch favor senators who have been elected in the last two election cycles because they never had to serve under Bill Frist and cast deliberately difficult votes, but among the group of senators that have been in office since before 2007 only Jack Reed of Rhode Island has a better progressive score than Bernie Sanders (you might remember that I lobbied hard for Reed to get the VP nomination).

It was Bernie Sanders who introduced a single-payer amendment to the Senate health care reform bill. I don't think it is controversial at all to say that on health care, at least, Sanders is the best of the 100 members of the Senate. So, naturally, FDL Action is threatening him with a primary from his left because he is voting for the president's number one domestic agenda, the Senate health care reform bill. This is on a day when Jane Hamsher appeared on Fox & Friends and teamed up with Grover Norquist in some kind of conspiracy-laden pogrom against the president's chief of staff.

I was polite for a while. Anyone still left in the employ of FDL ought to consider heading for exits now. It ain't gonna get any prettier.

its verdict: "yes."

The U.S. Senate has voted to pass the most ambitious piece of domestic legislation in a generation--a bill that will extend insurance coverage to tens of million Americans, strengthen insurance for many more, and start refashioning American medicine so that it is more efficient.

The vote took place a little after 7 a.m., after brief speeches by the two party leaders, Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell. The final count was a 60 to 39, with every Democrat voting "aye" and every Republican in attendance voting "no."

Vice President Joe Biden presided over the session and, on the floor, members seemed aware of the moment's historical import. The ailing Robert Byrd, who had to be wheeled in to the chamber for each of this week's four votes, reportedly shouted "for my friend Ted Kennedy, aye." Bernie Sanders, the Senate's most liberal member, cast the final vote with a loud, unmistakable "yes." When the voting was over, Democrats broke out into applause...

For all of the recent fighting among liberals, it is not the left that has stood (and still stands) in the way of creating a decent, protective health care system for nearly a hundred years. It’s the right
But, barring the kind of unforeseen political catastrophe not even the determined Republican opposition can concoct, the bill will pass. And it will be, as my colleague Jonathan Chait writes today, a watershed moment.

For nearly a hundred years, the political system has been debating whether access to basic medical care should be a right all citizens enjoy. When reform passes, the political system will finally render its verdict: "yes."