And for some odd indeterminable reason, people tend not to forget images like this. RT @shani_o: pic.twitter.com/xpbPaY40CG — Ta-Nehisi Coates (@tanehisicoates) December 4, 2014 New York Magazine writer Jonathan Chait, best known for being one of the “good liberals” who promoted the Iraq War, is still mad that The New Republic will no longer be [...]
|By: Jane Hamsher Thursday June 12, 2014 8:13 am|
The New Republic has published a hit piece on Chris Hedges that accuses him of plagiarism — without ever really documenting any direct plagiarism as far as I can tell. I’ll admit that my eyes started to glaze over as I read the 5700 word piece, so it may have crept in there and I had simply gone catatonic.
|By: Jane Hamsher Friday February 8, 2013 9:17 am|
Sean Eldridge, the 26 year-old husband of Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes, has filed paperwork to run as a Democratic candidate in New York’s 19th district, currently represented by two-term Republican incumbent Chris Gibson.
|By: Jon Walker Sunday October 2, 2011 6:35 pm|
The Supreme Court will likely rule on the Affordable Care Act in the summer of 2012, just months before the election. If they uphold the constitutionality of the law, that could be a modest political win for the Obama campaign. It would serve to undercut the Republican attack that the law was an “unconstitutional” government overreach. But I strongly disagree with Timothy Noah’s assertion that even an unfavorable Supreme Court ruling would be a political win for Obama. From The New Republic:
|By: Blue Texan Tuesday March 8, 2011 10:30 am|
I’d like to follow up on what Jane said this morning. I’ve just got four questions for you.
|By: Blue Texan Friday June 18, 2010 10:30 am|
Yesterday, The New Republic’s Jonathan Chait wrote a rather odd post about how silly it is for progressives to be disappointed with Obama, since really, the President of the United States can’t do too much about policy.
|By: Josh Nelson Monday April 26, 2010 3:15 pm|
I’ve been on the offensive against Senator Graham for the past two days, expressing frustration with his mind-boggling hypocrisy and wholly apparent lack of integrity. I believe his participation in the crafting of climate change legislation was completely disingenuous, and I don’t think he ever actually intended to see it through to completion. His rhetoric throughout the process has been anything but helpful, and it was becoming apparent by mid-March that he was looking for an excuse to bail on the effort, blaming superficial process concerns for his lack of resolve. And as it turned out, that is exactly what happened yesterday. If Democrats have an ounce of sense they’ll never again take anything Senator Graham says at face value.
Now, that doesn’t at all mean that Harry Reid doesn’t share the blame for the Senate’s failure to address the issue this year. Those who blame Senator Reid for his decision to prioritize immigration reform over the climate bill make a number of good points. Senator Reid’s decision does in fact appear to be, as Senator Graham put it, a cynical political ploy designed to shore up his chances to maintain his seat this November. So yes, I think Senator Reid’s decision, which may have been implicitly backed by the Obama administration, was a plainly political move that played no small part in how all of this unfolded.
|By: Jane Hamsher Friday March 26, 2010 9:29 am|
A while back Jake McIntyre wrote an interesting post (for which he was widely pilloried) noting that the same people who supported this bill were those who supported the Iraq war. Not a coincidence. The health care bill is a neoliberal victory, just as the Iraq war represented a neoliberal triumph. As willyloman said in a Seminal diary yesterday, neoliberalism is now being rebranded as populism, with the President acting as chief salesman. But in emails like this, and Nancy Pelosi’s trumpeting of the bill’s Heritage Foundation roots, it’s clear that the Democrats know what they’ve done. They have no intention of reversing themselves now. And they are consciously punching the progressive hippies whose messaging and ideals brought them their majorities in the first place.
|By: Jane Hamsher Thursday March 18, 2010 2:00 pm|
I’ve said many times that it’s impossible to expect progressive members of Congress to hold together if they don’t have the backing of their natural fiscal constituencies — the liberal interest groups and the unions. Without that support, they’re left to raise money from PACS and other corporate sources to sufficiently fund their campaigns. That’s why they take turns championing progressive bills that ultimately fail so they can pretend they do something, and then voting for bad bills that ultimately pass so someone else can be the failed hero. When Tammy Baldwin votes for one PhRMA-friendly bill after another, progressives can say “hey, but she’s so good on LGBT issues!” Which never actually pass either, but the kabuki keeps activists sufficiently docile and donating to large organizations who fundraise off amping up outrage.
But it’s also worthy to note that it’s hard for them to withstand the assault of liberal “pundits” who sneeringly derided their efforts as naive, futile and “purist.” They should be proudly taking credit for their role in delegitimizing progressive opposition to the bill in liberal intellectual circles, much the same role that the same people played during the Iraq war.
|By: GRITtv with Laura Flanders Wednesday December 2, 2009 9:00 am|
As activists make their way around Capitol Hill for today’s day of lobbying against the Stupak amendment, we ask: What will the Senate health care bill look like? Amidst the grandstanding, egos, and filibuster threats, is it possible to come out of the Senate with a more progressive bill than the House passed? Joining us [...]