Obama Campaign Staffer Sends Out Email Bashing Paul Krugman And 'Firebagger Lefty Blogosphere'

[kpete]

Obama Campaign Staffer Sends Out Email Bashing Paul Krugman And 'Firebagger Lefty Blogosphere'

WASHINGTON -- The Obama campaign's point person in New Mexico recently sent an email to supporters defending the president's position on the debt deal and bashing the "Firebagger Lefty blogosphere," including the Nobel Prize winning New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.

.............

Paul Krugman is a political rookie. At least he is when compared to President Obama. That's why he unleashed a screed as soon as word came about the debt ceiling compromise between President Obama and Congressional leaders - to, you know, avert an economic 9/11. Joining the ideologue spheres' pure, fanatic, indomitable hysteria, Krugman declares the deal a disaster - both political and economic - of course providing no evidence for the latter, which I find curious for this Nobel winning economist. He rides the coattails of the simplistic argument that spending cuts - any spending cuts - are bad for a fragile economy, ignoring wholeheartedly his own revious cheerleading for cutting, say, defense spending. But that was back in the day - all the way back in April of this year. <...>

........
No, the loudest screeching noise you hear coming from Krugman and the ideologue Left is, of course, Medicare. Oh, no, the President is agreeing to a Medicare trigger!!! Oh noes!!! Everybody freak out right now! But let's look at the deal again, shall we? <...>

Now let's get to the fun part: the triggers. The more than half-a-trillion in defense and security spending cut "trigger" for the Republicans will hardly earn a mention on the Firebagger Lefty blogosphere. Hell, it's a trigger supposedly for the Republicans, and of course, there's always It'sNotEnough-ism to cover it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/17/new-mexico-ofa-firebagger-lefty-blogosphere_n_929231.html?1313601833

[provis99]

1. I can't tell if this is an Obama staffer or a George Bush staffer.

That's how bad it's gotten.

[mzmolly]

39. So The President should applaud his perpetual

critics?

[StarsInHerHair]

76. well he DOES go all out to win the GOP's nasty heart

[mzmolly]

93. No he doesn't.

eom

[StarsInHerHair]

102. so your definition of "bi-partisanship" is?

[mzmolly]

135. Not having Republicans threaten to shut down the Government

when the President refuses to pass the Republican/Ryan plan.

[eridani]

180. After that orange whore Bonehead did exactly that, Obama referred to him

--as just a good American who happened to disagree with him. Wonder why the same characterization doesn't work for Krugman? Where has Krugman ever stated that his political goal is to destroy the Obama presidency? The Repuke whores sure have.

[Enthusiast]

216. Excellent points......nt

[mzmolly]

303. Obama is making political statements. I'm not obligated to demonstrate

my tolerance for Obama's critics. Obama didn't make the statement above. A staffer did.

Lastly, is Boehner popular here? Is he lauded here on a regular basis? No and no. If he were, your point might be valid.

[eridani]

309. If the staffer weren't speaking for Obama, he'd be gone

Look how fast Obama got rid of Shirley Sherrod, on the basis of an uninvestigated right wing fraud. Why does Obama like Boner better than Sherrod. or Krugman?

[mzmolly]

310. Obama can't get rid of Boehner.

Obama didn't consult on the Sherrod resignation. Why is everyone so desperate to change the subject all the time? The subject is what a staffer said about Krugman, who is a regular Obama critic.

[eridani]

320. The subject is whether the staffer represents Obama or not

Why was Obama willing to shitcan a decent federal employee on the basis of a vicious right wing attack, but not willing to can a staffer who supposedly doesn't represent his views? Boner does way more than criticize Obama--his entire existence is dedicated to destroying Obama. Krugman just wants some sensible Keynesian stimulus--which would benefit the economy AND Obama tremendously.

[mzmolly]

321. And my answer is who cares? Doesn't Krugman think that his contant jabs

merit critique?

Obama passed the largest stimulus package in history. Krugman ignores that.

I agree that we need to do more. I think Krugman is right about needing bolder action. Trouble is, we have a Republican house standing in the way.

[eridani]

324. No, Krugman did not ignore that. He specificallly stated that a stimulus which was 2/3

--tax cuts would be mildly helpful, but that the tax cut part reduced its potential effectiveness by 80% or so. IOW, 200 billion or so worth of stimulus cost us nearly a trillion.

Krugman's jabs have yet to be proven wrong about anything. Obama might at least consider using his bully pulpit to tell the public what the economy really needs, despite the fact that Republicans will make sure that absolutely nothing gets done until 2013.

Given that Repukes will say no to anything Obama proposes (even if they proposed it first, ferchrissakes!), why does he publicly call out the economists who are right instead of the Repukes who want to destroy him?

[mzmolly]

325. I'm not saying that Krugman is wrong. I'm saying it's bizarre to expect

the President's staff to applaud his critics.

Also, it's false to suggest that the President and his staff, haven't called out Republicans.

[eridani]

327. Really? When the president himself applauds Bonehead for being such a good American--

--despite some minor policy disagreements? Why doesn't Krugman deserve treatment at least as good, given that his proposals would all help the economy and thus help Obama too?

Why does Obama agree with the Repuke message that deficits are the single most important problem, and that cutting taxes is a good thing?

[mzmolly]

328. Ever heard of a political

statement?

Good grief, the fact that some fellow political junkies don't get politics, never fails to amaze me.

[eridani]

329. Why would we want our candidate to make political statements in support of

--the very people who want to destroy him? The point of cheerleading the messaging of his enemies would be what, exactly? Not to mention, against those who have been batting close to 1000 on the economy, whose ideas would help the economy and Obama himself?

[mzmolly]

330. To divide reasonable republicans, from those foaming at the

mouth. That said, I know the term reasonable republican, is a oxymoron. ;)

[eridani]

331. Are you saying that Obama hasn't yet noticed that Repukes are marching in lockstep?

Where were the "reasonable" dissents on the Ryan budget? Given that he must have noticed, what then is his purpose in constantly spouting Repuke messages?

[mzmolly]

332. I'm saying it's to his political advantage

to feign otherwise.

[eridani]

333. It helps him to destroy the Democratic party with Repuke messaging? How?

[mzmolly]

335. How is it in the interest of Republicans to point out that the far right/TP

are loons, who are preventing reasonable acts on the part of Government?

[eridani]

336. It is of no interest whatsoever, as they kiss the asses of their loons no matter what n/t

[Heathen57]

306. Well, this guy has made it clear

That anyone who is not part of the Dems who no longer care for the principals of the party (protecting the poor, fair deals in congress, support for the unions, the New Deal, and so on) are no longer welcome to participate in government. Only Wall Street bankers and Rich corporate CEO's need apply.

But they sure what my money. I get at least a dozen e-mails a day from DNC and others telling me that they represent my interests (they don't) and care about what I care about (they don't) and I need to send them at least $50. Thanks to their lack of action on many fronts, I no longer have any extra. We lost our house, our savings, I still have no healthcare. I can't afford to give, and I'm not sure that I would anyway.

Why should I give them money when they don't represent me?

[mzmolly]

311. If you're not fighting Republicans,

that makes you a hypocrite.

[Sheepshank]

263. what a dumbass unsubstantiated comment n/t

[Hassin Bin Sober]

150. No, just Ronald Reagan.

[Enthusiast]

215. Boner got 98% of what he wanted.

I ask that you remember that.

[shellgame26]

246. That's called SAVING FACE

LIMBAUGH: "We Chickened Out On Debt Deal, The Dems Gave Up Nothing In Compromise Zilch, Zero, Nada"
http://dailyrushbo.com/limbaugh-we-chickened-out-on-debt-deal-the-dems-gave-up-nothing-in-compromise-zilch-zero-nada/

[EFerrari]

247. You must be joking, Limbaugh is your go to analyst now?

[shellgame26]

253. Is that your idea of logic?

:shrug:

[EFerrari]

274. Yes, logic demands that you bring all your experience to bear on a problem

and experience should tell you Limbaugh is a propagandist, not a credible source of analysis.

[shellgame26]

287. So since you're implying

that simply quoting someone is evidence that you endorse their views then the next logical conclusion is that the OP endorses Behner's views.

and I thought you were smarter than that...

[EFerrari]

292. Well, I didn't imply that so, no.

lol

[cui bono]

299. You didn't simply quote Limbaugh, you used him as a factual reference.

So your comment about Boehner in the OP doesn't apply.

You brought up logic, you might want to take a class in it as yours is failing miserably. Adding your snark only makes it more sad.

[shellgame26]

308. So I take it

You, like the Op, take Boehner's word as fact over the President's.

Very telling...

[cui bono]

316. I can see that you have no ability to think critically and that you are in fact attempting a shell

game as your handle suggests. You know very well I said no such thing. I didn't even reference that at all.

If you want to have a discussion you'll have to respond to what I actually said, and admit to what you actually said.

[shellgame26]

317. I have already made my point

Your vitriol boring...

[cui bono]

267. +1

:rofl:

Some people will say anything to protect their chess master.

How sad.

[shellgame26]

293. sure

because we all know the only way to gain perspective on anything is to ONLY listen to people we agree with...:crazy:

[cui bono]

298. It's one thing to listen to Limbaugh. It's quite another to quote him as your factual reference.

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

It's also quite another thing to listen to a known liar rather than a thoughtful conservative who will actually speak to issues. Your comment implies that you are listening to him to hear conservative ideas yet everyone knows that he is a propagandizing blowhard who rarely speaks any truth. So your response is completely invalid in regards to this conversation.

[shellgame26]

307. Quoting him does not mean

I rely on him for any factual information. Nor does it mean I listen to him. I was simply using his quote to emphasize that Boehner was in fact trying to SAVE FACE when he stated that he had gotten 98% of what he wanted.

But of course you already knew that. The fact that you will not challenge the Op who stated what Boehner said and only challenge me shows you have no interest whatsoever in acknowledging context if it happens to go against your beliefs. And you are more interested in giving conservatives a pass if it helps to make the preseident look bad.

Shame.

[cui bono]

315. Your statement shows that you are taking what Limbaugh says as fact.

"I was simply using his quote to emphasize that Boehner was in fact trying to SAVE FACE when he stated that he had gotten 98% of what he wanted. "

See? You said right there that it was proof that Boehner was lying. How do you know that? Because Rush said so. You said it yourself. I'm not manipulating anything. I am the one who called out Limbaugh for the liar that he is yet you are trying to tell me that I am giving conservatives a pass? And to make Obama look bad? You don't need to give conservatives a pass to make Obama look bad. In fact, HE is the one giving conservatives a pass and he makes himself look bad by doing it. HE is the one who praised Boehner after the deal.

Don't project.

And adding "shame" to the end of your post doesn't change the facts.

[Enthusiast]

286. Engaged in a shell game?

Limbaugh? Really?

[shellgame26]

288. Yup Limbaugh!

The same Limbaugh who all republicans have to check in with before they say anything. I wonder why so many of you are so eager to give Boehner so much credit?

[pam4water]

226. Is that real ignorance on your part or purposeful ignorance?

[PVnRT]

242. Do you really need to ask?

[mzmolly]

305. It's ignorant to advocate for

Republicans.



I'm not doing that. You are.

[mzmolly]

304. Are you a real ass?

Or just an ass online?

[eilen]

245. YES!!!!!! "Hold my feet to the fire" ahem.... nt

[cui bono]

271. Yes, as a mater of fact. His critics from the Democratic Party are trying to get him back

from the dark side. He is not fighting for the values of the Dem Party. He is enacting Republican policy. He should be happy we are pointing out how he is failing and how he could be a better president. Hell, he TOLD us to do exactly that. He TOLD us to MAKE HIM DO IT.

Problem is, that was just rhetoric because as soon as he was elected he filled his administration with Wall Street, made back door deals (which he denied until he could no longer) with big pharma, etc... etc... etc... so clearly he didn't mean it.

The real question you should be asking is why he is so against those who are clearly the ones who stand up for true Democratic Party values and why he tells us to STFU. And why you are defending him after all his right wing actions. And why you are willing to throw under the bus those who are actually trying to save this country by expressing their views. And why you are okay with him capitulating to the Republican Party without even giving a fight and the insult and dismiss those in the Democratic Party.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[COLGATE4]

205. Is there a difference now?

[Evergreen Emerald]

2. I wish Obama would save his anger for those who deserve it

circular firing squad.

[Inuca]

12. A staffer did something stupid

it's not "Obama's anger".

[cherokeeprogressive]

15. If that "staffer" stays on Candidate Obama's campaign payroll, then there is tacit approval

of the remark in question.

[WCGreen]

18. That dig on the Noble Prize is a little projecting about that Peace

prize from the man overseeing at least two deadly wars that should have been over two years ago...

[XemaSab]

171. Back during the campaign a staffer saw a tree in which a bunch of

African-American kids were swinging. Not considering the racial context, she told them that they were swinging around like a bunch of monkeys, and she left the campaign a day or two later.

If the mere perception of derision and insensitivity on the part of a staffer was enough to get someone canned three years ago, why are we putting up with real derision and insensitivity now?

[AlabamaLibrul]

283. And Rahm did something stupid....

And Gibbs did something stupid....

At some point you have to look at who the man chooses to surround himself with.

[jberryhill]

23. How does this email indicate any anger by Mr. Obama?

[SusanaMontana41]

35. That staffer could have gone "rogue."

Blasting people isn't Obama's style. But a staffer IS a surrogate. If a staffer delivers an incorrect message, that staffer should be fired.

We'll see what happens.

[EFerrari]

41. Robert Gibbs said the same people needed to be drug tested

and used the word "crazy". How rogue can this guy be?

I wish they could manage to save their school yard insults for the backroom and not constantly remind people how much contempt there is for liberals in this campaign.

[SusanaMontana41]

43. I stand corrected.

Thanks for the reminders.

:hi:

[jberryhill]

85. Or corrected

What is it with firing people on a hair trigger these days?

Donald Trump is not the pinnacle of enlightened management.

[MedicalAdmin]

224. When did we get to the point when a mistake, a single verbal or written slip up ...

equals "they should be fired?" When did we become like them?

A pattern is another thing, but a single incident? A slip? ... Fired? Really?

[EFerrari]

291. Become like whom? A single mistake by an individual is one thing

but in aggregate, these single mistakes form an unmistakable pattern of contemptuous behavior in this administration.

[MedicalAdmin]

295. I guess I am looking at this from an employees point of view.

I would hate to be fired for making a single mistake. A pattern is another thing.

But I get your point that this NM dude should be at least demoted to cleaning toilets or something similar. I just don't think he should be fired IF IF IF this is a single aberrant mistake.

The issue of a national pattern in the system is worrying and I agree with you completely.

I just don't like to see workers rights (or what SHOULD be workers rights) getting stomped on to serve a political motive, no matter how noble.

[EFerrari]

296. I agree with that, as a teacher.

When I wrote to OFA, I actually said Sandoval is not the problem, but the tone set at the top is. :hi:

[tblue]

3. That's one reason I told them not to email me anymore.

They don't listen to anybody outside the bubble, not even Paul Krugman?! He was right all along about the stimulus and everything else.

[SusanaMontana41]

47. But but ... we're supposed to hold his feet to the fire.

He's still preaching that!

Effing unbelievable.

[truedelphi]

58. Same here. n/t

[JTFrog]

250. And a broken clock is right twice a day.

Krugman eventually circles every conceivable option in his writings on any given situation. So yea, he's gonna get everything right. Eventually.

[villager]

4. How to not win friends, and dis-influence people!

n/t

[LoZoccolo]

5. Yes! n/t

[Divine Discontent]

6. and to be fair, the president, you know, has changed his tune on some issues.

I don't think it's politically prudent for a sitting admin. to allow staffers to go after individuals from their own side that millions agree with...



http://www.cafepress.com/barackobama12

[meow mix]

269. hmm, i thought we werent needed... and should be happy living here under a bus.

and now these signs of despair being openly flouted. very puzzling :rofl:

[DJ13]

7. Does he post here, looks familiar

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Renew Deal]

16. I thought the "political rookie" thing looked familiar.

I have to search.

[Marr]

38. Yep. n/t

[Hassin Bin Sober]

151. Did it include blue links?

[EFerrari]

153. Not blue links, school yard insults. And thinking. n/t

[liberation]

217. LMAO

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[randr]

10. Obama, Please pay attention, pay very good attention

[grahamhgreen]

11. Half a trillion over 10 years on a 13 trillion a year defense budget (all in) is nothing.

[MilesColtrane]

13. Rec for the term "firebagger"

[Luminous Animal]

26. I agree. See my sig.

[EFerrari]

28. Yeah, a real feather in the cap of the individual who comes up with nasty names

to call Democratic voters.

But the OP shows that the tone really is set at the top. And you'd think the "point man" in New Mexico would be working on GOTV there instead of recycling crudely written juvenalia.

[Freddie Stubbs]

31. The term has been used here on DU quite a bit:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/searchresults.html?q=firebagger&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com&sa=Search&domains=democraticunderground.com&client=pub-7805397860504090&forid=1&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&cof=GALT%3A%23008000%3BGL%3A1%3BDIV%3A%23336699%3BVLC%3A663399%3BAH%3Acenter%3BBGC%3AFFFFFF%3BLBGC%3A336699%3BALC%3A0000FF%3BLC%3A0000FF%3BT%3A000000%3BGFNT%3A0000FF%3BGIMP%3A0000FF%3BFORID%3A11&hl=en

[EFerrari]

34. Indeed. It would be nice if DU could produce copy that brought us together

instead of copy that introduces ugliness into our politics. I wonder if that is even possible any more.

[Freddie Stubbs]

36. How do you bring together those who want to destroy the Obama presidency with those who

want to support it?

[EFerrari]

37. Oh, please. n/t

[sabrina 1]

51. It is Republicans who want to destroy

the Obama presidency. Your comment is disgusting and could not be more false. Those of us who supported this President wanted more than anything to see him succeed, to be one of the greatest Democratic Presidents in our history, and we thought that was what he wanted also.

Where is the anger from Obama staffers towards the real enemy, Republicans?

His supporters sound more like Republicans and if he does not fire that staffer it will be clear that this IS the opinion of the WH. Such childish, immature, not to mention totally failed strategy, is shameful. I hope he is not being paid with any money that was donated by those 'Firebaggers' they so despise.

[saras]

181. How about traditional Democratic Party values? If he wants in, he can share the party's values.

Then the Democrats don't have a problem with him, it's the DLC republicans who get upset.

[MedicalAdmin]

225. The usual way

Find common ground and the work together to achieve it. This usually leaving your ego at the door before sitting down and getting to work. It's really quite satisfying.

[fasttense]

229. No one here on DU wants to destroy the Obama presidency, unless they are a troll.

We only want to CHANGE it. Move it back to the left where it started from.

Just because we criticize them doesn't mean we want to get rid of them.

We want them to CHANGE.

[MattSh]

280. The CAMPAIGN started left...

To suck progressives and liberals in. But the Obama presidency at no time was anywhere left of Reagan.

[EFerrari]

302. That's true and becomes more apparent all the time. n/t

[A Simple Game]

254. One way we could come together is to tell President Obama

that all of us are ready for some of that change we were promised. I'm sure he's going slow because he doesn't want to shock us.

I'm sure we are all in favor of his talks about support for working class families, we could get together and ask him to put action to those words.

We should start small, we wouldn't push too soon for stopping the wars, stopping illegal wire taps, closing Gitmo, etc.

So, do you also praise your enemies?

[cui bono]

272. No one was talking about Republicans. But then you were really just being immature weren't you?

If you believe what you post you shouldn't be here since you clearly cannot engage in a mature discussion that involves critical thinking.

You really don't understand the difference between criticism and a desire to destroy the presidency? Or do you just react emotionally to every little thing people say that you don't like.

:eyes:

[FredStembottom]

278. Destroy?? the Obama presidency???

[marions ghost]

326. really

:thumbsup: thank you

[Horse with no Name]

57. Probably brought here by the same creatures that

created this article for Obama.

It does sound pretty familiar...

[EFerrari]

134. The author of this piece has a DU account.

It's totally depressing that the power of DU is being used in this way, imo.

[Horse with no Name]

140. Yep. Not surprising. At all. n/t

[Mr Deltoid]

196. Yeah, I saw it posted here the other day

I remember it started with, 'Paul Krugman is a political rookie.'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=731910&mesg_id=731910">Here

[cui bono]

273. Oh god, THAT guy! What a tool. He doesn't know how to engage in a conversation.

It's all fingers in ears "la la la la la" and "I'm rubber and you're glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you" childish retorts from him.

[Mr Deltoid]

279. I will never understand how such behavior 'supports' Obama

Seriously, if anything it repulses people.

[dbackjon]

149. So what is that staffer's DU handle?

[dana_b]

165. did it originate here?

maybe not but I haven't heard that term in so widely used as it is here at DU.

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. When there was an explicit alliance between FireDogLake and Norquist, what do you expect?

It's actually hard to know if 'firebaggers' are 'Democratic voters', since they are so quick to attack Democrats.

Odd Couple Of Norquist, Hamsher Call For Investigation, Rahm's Resignation

Grover Norquist and Jane Hamsher are not often on the same side of anything, beyond both usually being in the Western Hemisphere. Norquist is a leading voice of fiscal conservatism as head of the anti-tax group Americans for Tax Reform; Hamsher is a leading voice of the digital left, whose blog Firedoglake has taken on influence in speaking up for progressives during the health care debate and in pressuring lawmakers through its activist arm, FDL Action.

But the two have united to level serious allegations at White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and demand his resignation.


Hamsher and Norquist coauthored a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder today calling for a Department of Justice investigation of Emanuel for his role on the board of Freddie Mac, alleging that the White House, since Emanuel arrived there, has blocked an investigation of the government-sponsored mortgage lender.

Emanuel served on Freddie Mac's board in 2000-2001, when he quit to run (successfully) for Congress. He has also recently sparked the ire of liberals like Hamsher after it was reported that he pushed for Senate Democratic leaders to compromise with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) on health care reform and jettison an expansion of Medicare from the Senate bill.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/12/odd-couple-of-norquist-hamsher-call-for-investigation-rahms-resignation/32543/

Norquist's 'drown the government in a bathtub' message is the fundamental teabagger massage. And he has been around long enough for everyone to know he is out to attack Democrats, not 'call for justice'. Anyone getting into bed with him, as Hamsher did, fully deserves the '-bagger' suffix.

The New Mexico man is completely wrong to put Krugman in the 'teabagger' camp, though. He has standard economic theory behind his criticisms of Obama, and Obama's camp should be honest and accept they are saying "this time, it'll all be different - we know better than the vast majority of history's economists!". That blogger knew fuck all about economics if he thought Krugman hadn't explained why Obama's deficit policy is likely to go badly wrong.

[EFerrari]

45. I don't have the energy to list all the "explicit" alliances Obama has made

with the right wing or maybe, the best evidence is that he's now taken to repeating their Reaganomics as gospel. And more lately, he's out there attacking public employees' unions so, actually, Obama is much more allied with Norquist's philosophy than Jane is, sorry.

What do I expect? I expect the campaign not to deal in freeperish insults. Is that expectation too high?

And Krugman's critique of Obama is not special. Every economist worth his/her salt has said basically the same thing. Remember the letter from 300 economists last year?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1691700

[muriel_volestrangler]

I agree with you about Krugman, if you'll read my post again

The insult is just talking about a waste of space like Hamsher. Frankly, she doesn't deserve any better, even from a campaign. Anyone on the left would do well to distance themselves from her, and then they wouldn't need to worry about the 'firebagger' tag.

[EFerrari]

54. The attacks on Krugman, like the attacks on Jane, are childish

and ungrounded in substance. I pointed out that Krugman was not alone in his assessment to show that these attacks try to pick off an individual while ignoring that the individual in question usually has majority opinion behind them.

And you might consider that the disgusting attacks on Jane and on Paul harm us more than they will ever harm them. I'd think that would be obvious (eta) especially in this thread where we see a bit of ugliness developed here is now being used by whoever the mental 12 year old is running New Mexico.

[muriel_volestrangler]

60. Probably originated on Daily Kos, not here

TooFolkGR, Dec 21 2009 (comment near the bottom): http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/21/817528/-Beltway-Idiots-Posting-on-Daily-Kos

I think it's absurd for firebaggers, who spend so much time insulting Obama and pretty much anyone who doesn't agree with them to get upset at a name. I can't even see that it's 'disgusting' - it's just a reference to Hamsher's alliance of convenience. There's nothing biological or slanderous about it. Maybe she'd rather not be reminded of how desperate she was, but tough.

[EFerrari]

63. As I said, the name calling you embrace, says much more about you than about Jane.

And I'll leave it at that. :)

[Donnachaidh]

107. [phone] n/t

[Canuckistanian]

128. +infinity

[Hassin Bin Sober]

156. Yep. Agreed.

[Name removed]

190. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bullwinkle428]

66. +1000

[newspeak]

282. so, if a progressive agrees with one thing from the other side

then they are in cahoots together? Rand Paul is against the wars, I'm against the wars, ergo I must be for Rand Paul. Who knew?

The article singles out Krugman, Krugman is not the only economist who sees that more money was needed for stimulus or the job creation should be the biggest focus.

[zalinda]

46. Just because some people who are 'enemies' agreed

on one thing doesn't mean they are in bed together on everything.

Remember, even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.

zalinda

[Donnachaidh]

109. that's far too logical for those who live to stir up smoke and mirrors

Keeping people separated into factions keep those people from finding out they are both being played.

[cui bono]

300. Shhh. No reasoning and critical thinking allowed when defending the Big O. n/t

[kenfrequed]

50. nonsense

Typical nonsense agaisnt Hamsher. Obvious effort to compare her to right wingers even though she has never advocated any right wing policy ever and no one can actually connect directly any right wing advocacy work being done by her.

But apparantly that is all part of some dastardly conspiracy. I guess that Progressives are too stupid to notice that there have been far too many concessions to the right wing so the right wing is hiring someone that worked on "Natural Born Killers" to help them by having her belabor the obvious.

Seriously. Get. A. clue.

[sabrina 1]

52. And what about the explicit relationship between this Administration

and Norquist who was invited to give advice to the Deficit Commission? Hamsher is a BLOGGER. She has no influence of the policy. But this administration gave power to Grover Norquist to influence policy, yet those who are all upset over as blogger signing a letter with him, could not care less about him actually infuencing what happens with the Government's Budget? The man who wants to 'shrink Government' to the point where it can be washed down the drain of a bath-tub?? Where is the anger over that?

It was decisions like that that began to raise questions about the goals of this administration.

[girl gone mad]

96. Good for her and Norquist.

Emanuel served on the board of Freddie Mac while they were engaging in Enron style accounting fraud. He profited handsomely while in that position. He should not have been involved in the decisions to bail the company out and he probably doesn't belong in government at all.

Why would you be against uniting with people on the right to investigate corporate criminals? Why??? Do you like it when these corrupt revolving-door corporate/political players abuse their power and influence in order to screw taxpayers out of hundreds of millions of dollars so they (and their pals) can keep the gains they pocketed from fraud?

Obama is more than happy to unite with people on the right to beat down unions, workers, peacemakers, human rights activists, homeowners, etc. Why give him a pass on these alliances?

[Luminous Animal]

322. Bob Fertik of Democrats.com also had an explicit alliance with Norquist.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=33740

[Bluebear]

48. Absolutely. Using that term is VERY telling.

[Amonester]

201. At least it's not "teaRoarist"

whom they always want to pamper.

[bluestateguy]

14. These kind of sentiments should be kept private and behind closed doors

I don't condemn the content, but I do condemn him saying it.

[sabrina 1]

56. I disagree, I think it's better that people know what the

politicians they are asked to support, actually think of them. If that staffer remains, we will know exactly what this administration thinks of those who helped get him elected. Too bad they don't have the same sense of anger towards their real enemies.

This is a very telling revelation if s/he remains on the staff. And will definitely cause a lot of people to wonder why Republicans are rarely the target of those who express these viewpoints about their fellow Democrats.

[Vinnie From Indy]

17. I look forward to the next email explaining why it is critical to strip the MIC out of the trigger

list. As sure as the Sun rises in the East, you will see the "triggers" for cutting defense spending eliminated or drastically reduced. I figure one false flag OP in the U.S. ought to do it. The players are probably already rehearsing their lines for the 24/7 fear fest that the mainstream media will unleash on Americans. Medicare will still be fully in the crosshairs of the "super-committee" like a plump, juicy turkey all ready for the killing, plucking and eating.

This is exactly how it will play out and exactly how it was designed to play out.

[EFerrari]

22. Panetta is going after pensions, just as Cerridwen predicted

not long ago that the cuts would all be to benefits, pay, the VA, etc.

[Erose999]

40. Yep, they will cut all the good stuff out of Defense - VA, pensions, veterans programs, etc. Rest

assured the defense budget will continued to be filled with epic wastes of taxpayer money (and programs of dubious morals/ethics) like enhanced interrogations, giant space lasers, predator drones, tactical nukes, etc.

[nc4bo]

19. How nice.

Although a suitable arrangement from ThePayBack (http://www.thepayback.com/) would have given that letter an extra touch of specialness.

sigh.......

[daa]

20. What about Christina Romer?

History doesn't repeat, but does it rhyme? If so, which history? Romer continues:

One reason the Depression dragged on so long was that the rapid recovery of the mid-1930s was interrupted by a second severe recession in late 1937. Though many factors had a role in the “recession within a recession,” monetary and fiscal policy retrenchment were central. In monetary policy, the Fed doubled bank reserve requirements and the Treasury stopped monetizing the gold inflow. In fiscal policy, the federal budget swung sharply, from a stimulative deficit of 3.8 percent of G.D.P. in 1936 to a small surplus in 1937.

Or Scott Sumner:
"Hoover wasn’t able to print gold, but can be blamed for supporting the Fed’s tight money policies," writes Scott Sumner. "Obama can’t print dollars, but can be blamed for not moving aggressively to put people at the Fed who understand the need for more dollars."

http://www.capitalspectator.com/archives/2011/08/is_obama_the_ne.html

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SidDithers]

25. Barack W. Hoover...

clever. :eyes:

Sid

[emulatorloo]

24. You left out this paragraph: "Obama himself has personally tried to reassure the blogosphere"

"Obama himself has personally tried to reassure the blogosphere, at times even encouraging dissent. In a video message sent last year to attendees of the Netroots Nation conference -- an annual gathering of progressive bloggers and activists, Obama said, "What I’m asking you is to keep making your voices heard. To keep holding me accountable. To keep up the fight."

[SusanaMontana41]

42. Oh, and he MEANS that.

We hear it in his every speech: "shared sacrifice" and "reform."

:puke:

[Dawgs]

27. Boehner, "I got 98% of what I wanted"

:shrug:

[shellgame26]

248. LIMBAUGH: We Chickened Out On Debt Deal, The Dems Gave Up Nothing In Compromise Zilch, Zero, Nada

[boston bean]

29. That staffer sounds like 25% of Duers! LOL

[Peregrine Took]

30. +1

[Rex]

32. So I wonder why they want Obama to lose in 2012?

One has to wonder since 80% of liberals support Obama, why would some of his staff try and destroy votes? I think it is professional jealousy and the fact that some of his staff are total failures. They pick on a blog like cowards and would NEVER try and debate anyone, just cry and whine like a 5 year old. :eyes:

Obama has some pathetic staff members that need to get a life BAD.

Of course they probably LOVE the Repuke Huff...sick little fucks.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fearless]

49. More liberal bashing by the Republican president.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mod mom]

55. Every day I feel further estranged from the man I worked hard to get elected.

Sorry Obama staffer but I'd side with Professor Krugman any day over your sad policies. I've told OFA staffers a while back that I wouldn't work as I do not support his policies but I would probably still vote for the President. Every day I am leaning more at attempting to find a 3rd party candidate who would listen to the people/experts like Paul Krugman. :mad:

[ProSense]

59. Useless shit stirring

So let me get this straight an OFA director in NM links to an article claiming:

"I know many of you have raised frustrations, but please, I implore you, please take 5 minutes and read the article below. It does a great job of explaining the Debt Ceiling deal," Sandoval wrote in bold text.

Since the article is critical of Krugman, Huffpo writes: Obama Campaign Staffer Sends Out Email Bashing Paul Krugman And The 'Firebagger Lefty Blogosphere'

Now for the irony at the end of the article:

Obama himself has personally tried to reassure left-leaning bloggers, at times even encouraging dissent. In a video message sent last year to attendees of the Netroots Nation conference -- an annual gathering of progressive bloggers and activists, Obama said, "What I’m asking you is to keep making your voices heard. To keep holding me accountable. To keep up the fight."

UPDATE: 3:24 p.m. -- Hamsher responds: "(I)f this is a brilliant political strategy on the part of OFA, someone is going to have to explain it to me. I know the goal is to attract the much-prized Independent for 2012. But who do they think is keeping Obama's poll numbers afloat? ... What exactly does OFA think they stand to gain by ridiculing Krugman as a 'political rookie,' a hysterical 'fanatic' and an 'idealogue'? Do they think they hold so much sway with liberals that they can discredit Krugman and thus neutralize his criticism? This smacks more of narcissism and personal vendetta than any sound political 'strategy.'"

The same Hamsher who wrote this: His most ardent supporters are the dumbest motherf*****s in the world"

[EFerrari]

62. The real irony is that you feel you can handle this by more smearing.

Ever hear of the Not Ready for Prime Time Players?

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

101. Welcome to DU, Elder Motel.

I hope you get to read more civil threads than this one. :)

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

124. LOL!

Welcome!

[ProSense]

123. No,

that's not the irony. The irony is considering calling out Jane Hamsher for an idiotic remark and now an opportunistic response from a shit stirring post at HuffPo a "smear."

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sabrina 1]

64. Well, if that email from an OFA staffer is any indication

Hamsher is absolutely correct when she says 'his most ardent supporters are the dumbest motherf*****s in the world'. I met many of them on blogs BEFORE the election, they all sounded just like this and many people asked that they be fired as they were really turning people off, mostly Independents who came to those blogs to learn something about him.

A book could be written about those people. Karl Rove would be proud of them. They were bullies and arrogant and mostly, ignorant and Obama won the last election IN SPITE OF THEM as people, like me among others were constantly apologizing for them to try to persuade people not to judge this President based on those so-called supporters. In fact, many wondered if they actually were supporters, or infiltrators attempting to drive people away.

Times are different now, Obama is president and I for one will not be making any apologies, as I did in 2008 for this kind of behavior. Too much has happened since then. He will need to come out and make a statement and get rid of this poisonous influence from his campaign. It's hard to convince people anymore that it does not represent him. After all we have now heard from his own WH staff what they think of the people they are counting on to vote for him.

He quickly got rid of Van Jones and Shirley Shepherd when the insane rightwinger, Breitbart attacked them. And it was so fast we did not even time to react.

I expect this person will be fired just as swiftly. For someone who talks about 'bi-partisanship' and uniting rather than dividing people, his most avid supporters don't seem to have received that message.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jeff47]

74. Then why did the staffer decide to stir the pot?

Or is this another case where Obama and his allies have no agency? Things just happen to them?

[Name removed]

230. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mmonk]

61. Corporate toadies attacking us again?

[pauldg0]

275. I think your right!!

[Remember Me]

67. "Oh noes!!" ?????????

Is that a joke elsewhere than DU? Does anyone know?

[muriel_volestrangler]

68. About 3,830,000 results on Google

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22oh+noes%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t

So, yes, it's a joke in one or two other places too.

[sabrina 1]

69. Pretty immature coming from a staffer. But it is not confined to

DU though, I've seen it all over the place.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

159. You see it on freeper boards.

I'm surprised the staffer didn't accuse the left of "running around like a bunch of fags"

[COLGATE4]

206. You see it a lot on Freeper blogs. A nasty little way to imitate what

they believe to be "n----r talk".

[iamthebandfanman]

257. i used to use it alot in my younger days..

its used for sarcasm...

[AtomicKitten]

70. It's about time they returned a handful of the horseshit thrown at them on a daily basis.

[bluestate10]

72. Hail, Hail. nt

[Number23]

313. I agree. It's delicious

And so is the frantic response from a bunch of people in this thread.

[bluestate10]

71. I second the email. The staffer is exactly right. nt

[EFerrari]

73. Well, no. He's got the economics ass backward and his tone

is better suited to a jr high locker room than a presidential re-election campaign.

[Hydra]

78. Some people's bar on what's "exactly right"

Seem strangely attuned to what was going on in the Bush Admin.

[StarsInHerHair]

75. no evidence!?!! LOOK AT THE U.K.!!! rePULSIVE faux dem!

[Hydra]

77. You know how bad things have become

When people are cheering for this on DU.

I'm glad they're being so honest with us, though. Apparently nobody knows how to run things (into the ground) the way they do! The rest of us are "rookies."

[mmonk]

79. Jane responds:

"f this is a brilliant political strategy on the part of OFA, someone is going to have to explain it to me. I know the goal is to attract the much-prized Independent for 2012. But who do they think is keeping Obama's poll numbers afloat? ... What exactly does OFA think they stand to gain by ridiculing Krugman as a 'political rookie,' a hysterical 'fanatic' and an 'idealogue'? Do they think they hold so much sway with liberals that they can discredit Krugman and thus neutralize his criticism? This smacks more of narcissism and personal vendetta than any sound political 'strategy.'"

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2011/08/17/ofa-director-attacks-firebagger-lefty-blogosphere-says-paul-krugman-is-a-political-rookie/

[ClarkUSA]

84. PUMA Jane Hamster Face, Queen of Firebaggers, who called Obama supporters "Dumb Motherfuckers"?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&q=jane+hamsher+dumb+muthafuckers&aq=f&aqi=m-sD1&aql=&oq=

LOL! She got nailed. What goes around comes around. Rightly so.

[mmonk]

86. And this staffer knows more about the economy than Krugman?

[ClarkUSA]

88. Prof. Krugman is a whiny ivory tower 2008 Hillary booster who was against HCR before he was for it.

This staffer knows how Congress works better than Krugman, that's for sure.

[mmonk]

89. Are you sure? I keep hearing about bipartisanship. Rabid dogs

aren't bipartisan.

[ClarkUSA]

90. What comes around goes around. I'm glad the gloves are coming off.

Rabid PUMAs like Jane Hamster Face need to be put down.

I'm happy that Ray Sandoval called her out. deaniac 83 rocks!! They sure hit a nerve. :rofl:

[sabrina 1]

141. I would say that those two you mentioned have probably lost

untold numbers of Independent voters for Obama. Why are they trying to lose this election for this president?

[MessiahRp]

186. "Need to be put down"?

Nice violent rhetoric, asshole.

Rp

[KoKo]

255. Are you threatening Jane Hamsher..."Rabid PUMAs like Jane Hamster Face need to be put down".

[frylock]

260. i'm so glad the adults are in charge..

what comes around goes around. so very mature. can't wait for obama's "i'm rubber you're glue" speech.

[TNLib]

105. If I could go back in time I'd vote for Hillary

nt

[ClarkUSA]

108. Congrats! Then you'd have voted for a 80K troop surge for 10+ yrs. in Afghanistan.

Because as you know, former Republican DLC Royal Hillary sided with Gen. McChrystal on that issue. Also, you would have had voted for the revival of the DLC, as opposed to its death (it closed its doors and went to Clinton heaven aka. the Clinton library).

[Desertrose]

138. What has the troop surge been under Obama?

Not that I was for HRC, but I'm curious.

What has the troop surge been under Obama?

[jeff47]

197. Obama's surge was 30,0000 soldiers, airmen and marines. (nt)

[Dragonfli]

174. The DLC think tank PPI is still pushing right wing bullshit, and the dlc members all call themselves

"third way" or "new Democrat" now, the DLC has gone nowhere but into the White House, it has not died but simply been re-branded.

Oh and by the way Obama is a "new Democrat" or have you forgotten he mentioned that?

[mdmc]

232. circle d baby!

[EFerrari]

106. So how do you account for the other 299 economists that tried to warn Obama

last year that his plan wasn't going to work?

lol

[mod mom]

110. Probably more whiny ivory tower 2008 Hillary boosters

:eyes:

[EFerrari]

114. They all have kooties!

:rofl:

[ClarkUSA]

117. Those 299 economists should run for Congress instead of whining.

[COLGATE4]

209. Absolutely brilliant riposte. Can I quote you on that?

[frylock]

261. now i remember why i put you on ignore

*click*

[Dragonfli]

176. They are all pot smoking ideologues and doo doo fireheads just like Hampster face

neener neener neener.

The only thing I am missing now is that condescending "I Got This" pic

[MadHound]

179. And Krugman knows how the economy works better than this staffer,

And apparently this administration as well.

I tend to put my trust with the experts in any given field, especially Nobel Prize winning experts.

Furthermore, unlike some of the economic experts Obama has/had working for him(Geithner, Summers, Bernanke, et. al.), Krugman didn't help get us into this mess.

[COLGATE4]

208. The staffer may know more about how Congress works than

Krugman, but Krugman certainly knows a hell of a lot more about economic issues than the staffer (and Obama).

[Beacool]

252. Well, then there are plenty of economists who are "Hillary ivory tower whiny boosters" out there.

Your obsession to bring the Clintons on any post criticizing Obama has now gone from funny to sad.

Can't you defend Obama without bashing other Democrats?

:eyes:

[CelticThunder]

182. She doesn't need to get anybody to vote for her OBAMA does.

[TiberiusB]

222. Cherry picking

She got nailed, eh?

You mean when she and other bloggers on FiredogLake predicted that Obama would wind up taking the McConnell deal and instituting potentially disastrous cuts in the budget? You remember, this would be the same time when Lawrence O'Donnell scolded Jane and other liberal critical of Obama as being ignorant, and that Obama had completely won the debt ceiling debate? Remember that? I'm sure you do. You must remember, since the links you cite are all from that period, and not from the time frame for the actual debt deal.

Hey, remind me, who turned out to be right about that whole debt ceiling thing? Jane or Lawrence?

[Creideiki]

227. So depress the liberal vote as much as you can.

Come 2012 you'll need someone to blame and somehow it won't be Obama, Rahm, or the man in the mirror.

[bengalherder]

259. Think of the vitriol some have for people who voted for Nader once....

...even though in the light of history, Gore won and the supremes put the fix in.

In 2013 they might just have an excuse, as frail as it is, to liberal bash more than they do now.

[newspeak]

294. and I find it damn sad today

that a democrat who has voted democratic all of her life believing in FDR's New Deal, is now seen as an opposite of the teabaggers. How far we've gone down that slippery slope. I also wonder why Obama appointed those who helped CAUSE the problem.

[Historic NY]

237. +1

[Beacool]

251. Gee Clark, give it up with the PUMA crap.

One thing is to be supportive of a politician and another thing is to offer blind support no matter his actions (or lack thereof).

:crazy:

[frylock]

258. there's no more greater evidence to the fact that they're dumb mutherfuckers than this..

dumb mutherfuckers email.

[LWolf]

266. Interestingly enough,

I find her smarter than so many of her detractors.

[Major Hogwash]

91. Just because someone has a computer with a modem doesn't mean they should go online

Jane is more irrelevant this year than she was in 2008.
Her blog is a joke.

People have moved on to using other technology.
Technology that goes around flamerthrowers like Jane.
Twitter is used by more kids than blogs are.
Jane is using 20th Century technology in a 21st Century world!

[mmonk]

112. Actually, she uses quite a bit of technology.

[EFerrari]

115. You don't know anything about Jane Hamsher, do you?

:)

[Major Hogwash]

126. Actually, I know quite a bit about her.

One of her best friends who posted on a blog with Jane before she started FDL was a friend of mine.

[EFerrari]

132. But you have no idea what she is doing.

I have friends of friends all over the place. That doesn't mean I know anything about Kansas, The Nation, ABC or the French Quarter.

It's a good thing to know your limits.

[Major Hogwash]

155. Sure I do, it's all over the internet -- she's an interloper posing as a liberal.

She probably got a lot of money from Bachmann, or the Koch brothers, to say all this crap about Obama.

[EFerrari]

157. Jane is a good liberal who is not alone in her assessments of Obama

or in being attacked by people like you.

[Major Hogwash]

160. She trashed John Kerry in 2004, and then bashed Obama in 2008.

She's not a liberal at all.

[EFerrari]

162. As usual, what you have is unsupported claims and insults.

:shrug:

[bengalherder]

262. Mr. Skull n Bones Kerry?

He's part of the damn problem.

Folded like a cheap suit in Ohio.

[Major Hogwash]

319. Yes, Senator Kerry who was awarded the Silver Star, the Bronze Star, and 3 Purple Hearts in Vietnam.

The very same one.

[EFerrari]

104. Jane is 'way too generous.

LOL

[jeff47]

198. She should be generous. This dumb staffer just brought her a ton of traffic. (nt)

[Major Hogwash]

81. I trust the President of the United States.

So, if he disagrees with someone, there's a damned good reason for it, you can bet.

[frylock]

264. honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision he makes..

and should just support that, you know, and be faithful in what happens.

[Bobbie Jo]

83. Good. nt

[myrna minx]

87. Genius GOTV strategy.

:eyes:

[mmonk]

92. Yep. Real brainy.

[ClarkUSA]

94. Did PUMA Jane Hamster Face, Queen of Firebaggers, reveal the GOP clients of her media company yet?

[TwilightGardener]

95. This is a really poorly written, unprofessional email. They need to replace

this person in New Mexico. On edit, it appears he didn't write the offensive passage. But he should choose his articles better. That said, I agree with Prosense above--useless shit-stirring, and a wet dream for FDL/Hamsher that someone paid attention to them. Pretty sure Prez. O has no idea who that self-promoting asshole is.

[EFerrari]

99. Careful. That wasn't an "article" and the author is a local guy. nt

[Bluebear]

97. Check his emails for pony, poutrage and shit statements

[MzNov]

98. He didn't call us weird so maybe he won't get fired

oh, I know, he doesn't work for Axelrod, but he knows him. :rofl:

[EFerrari]

152. LOL

[yardwork]

100. That was stupid.

[TNLib]

103. Did a high school intern write that?

It came across as kind of juvenile. I'm kind of embarrassed for the White House that one of there staff wrote that.

[ClarkUSA]

113. "there staff"? Oh, the irony!

TNLib (528 posts) Wed Aug-17-11 07:23 PM
Response to Original message

103. Did a high school intern write that?

It came across as kind of juvenile. I'm kind of embarrassed for the White House that one of there staff wrote that.

:rofl:

[ClarkUSA]

111. Truth to Power! Good for OFA's Ray Sandovol. And deaniac 83 rocks! Boy, he sure hit a nerve.

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

116. I guess it's always after 5 somewhere.

:)

[ClarkUSA]

119. Yes, it's always after 5 over for PUMA Jane Hamster Face and the GOP clients of her media company.

:party:

[EFerrari]

121. I notice that every time you call Jane dumb names, this thead gets a few more recs.

nice going.

:party:

[Luminous Animal]

130. And I have asked him several times to show me the evidence that Jane is a PUMA.

Crickets... always crickets.

[girl gone mad]

133. I'd also like to see the evidence that she has a "hamster face"

:shrug:

[Dragonfli]

178. Well I do know he has it on good authority that she is also a doo doo head!

[mmonk]

118. I think going after Krugman is a mistake, at least by sending emails

out like that. I don't think it will do the administration any favors.

[EFerrari]

120. Oh, come on. Who doesn't want 12 year olds and their testosterone burden

messaging for this re-election campaign?

They're meeting Rick Perry exactly half way.

[Major Hogwash]

127. Please, your hatred for men is getting out of hand here.

If you can't make a better argument than that, you should cash in your chips and go home.

[EFerrari]

129. LOL! You'll have to tell my two sons about my "hatred for men".

They could use the laugh.

That's all you have isn't it?

:spray:

[jeff47]

199. Um....Obama's the one in power. The columnist and the blogger have no real power. (nt)

[eilen]

312. Yeah, the great powerful Obama

Hey he got 2%!!!!!!!!!!

[ProSense]

125. “The views expressed in this email do not represent the views of the campaign.”

“The views expressed in this email do not represent the views of the campaign.”

[EFerrari]

131. It's always good to have the official denial. n/t

[slay]

142. Then why have him working the campaign? Sounded pretty official. Nice little - CYA disclaimer tho

:eyes:

[me b zola]

136. More hippie punching

I really think that is their entire campaign strategy.

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

144. Up to 49 now. Thanks. n/t

[me b zola]

145. When progressives want the president to be strong and fight...

...we want him to fight conservatives and their ideology. Instead he fights everyone who fights for the principles that drew most of us to the party.

[suffragette]

202. And surrounds himself with staff who spout contempt

at the people fighting for those principles.

And that's just creating more division and distance.

[slay]

143. Yep - and they've punched me

right out of supporting Obama this time round - well no, Obama's actions have actually done that, but their punch the hippie strategy just shows their mentality.

[ClarkUSA]

161. PUMA Jane Hamster Face, Queen of Firebaggers, ain't no hippie. She supported DLC Hillary in 2008...

...and she's helping Republican clients via her media company.

[jeff47]

192. And yet she's not the one who's supposed to be working on a campaign for president

You can try to whine all you want about Hamisher, but that doesn't change the fact that OFA just engaged in gratuitous hippy-punching.

Krugman writes a newspaper column. Hamisher is a blogger. The fact that OFA is responding AT ALL to them indicates just how badly OFA is being run.

[Luminous Animal]

323. Why do you keep spreading this lie. She explicitly stated on her blog that she was NOT supporting

any Democrat over another during the primaries. You have been challenged on this time and time again to prove your accusations and simply cannot do it.

[Starry Messenger]

146. Wonder what his DU name is.

[Name removed]

148. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluenorthwest]

147. The extreme nature of the language of the OFA is familiar

both from DU and from reading the history of the McCarthy era. It is mean spirited, anti-intellectual slang ridden slander, as venomous as it is vapid, and it is very much the clearly chosen style of the Obama organization.

[BlueIris]

158. It is McCarthyesque.

It also reminds me of the ignorant vitriol on a certain conservative website we still aren't allowed to mention around here.

[Major Hogwash]

183. I hope this staffer gets promoted up the campaign ladder because we need more of this kind of thing.

Obama doesn't defend his own policies as much as he should.
But, there are other people who have went way the hell out of their way to defend them, only to wind up being trashed here at DU.

The real problem with peeps defending Jane Hampster is they don't look at the overall view that she has of politics in Washington since she won't even consider setting her spaceship down on Mother Earth long enough to assess the situation.

She's in outer space, spewing the most vitriolic crap she can in an attempt to self-promote herself.

[jeff47]

195. We need more of Obama's campaign attacking the left?

My, how pathetic.

A campaign for president is wasting it's time and energy attacking a newspaper columnist and a second-rate blogger.

[Mr Deltoid]

The name calling, etc, sours folks

So does the pettiness. Obama needs to quash this drama from his campaign, it will only cost him votes.

[Major Hogwash]

184. Just repeating McCarthy like that isn't going to work.

The staffer that wrote this isn't starting a federal investigation into Hampster, and that's what McCarthy's investigation was.

[suffragette]

204. That it is.

[Dr Fate]

154. I think I know that guy.

Did anyone else get those PMs about him?

[ClarkUSA]

164. I got a PM forwarded to me from someone who got one.

I sent it onto him as a heads-up.

[Dr Fate]

281. Agreed. This staffer sounds like many of our centrist allies and heroes on DU. nt

nt

[ClarkUSA]

163. Krugman/Hamsher for President in 2012!

After all, only "dumb motherfuckers" support President Obama, or so says PUMA Jane, Queen of Firebaggers.

A Krugman/Hamsher ticket should win at least 10% of the population! :woohoo:

(Hat Tip to Frenchie Cat)

[EFerrari]

166. Yes, that kind of ugly can't be pulled off by just anybody. n/t

[ClarkUSA]

167. Here's deaniac83's response. It's very enjoyable reading. --->

Let me send a message to Huffington Post, FDL, and all the ideologue havens in the Firebagger Lefty Blogosphere (that's right, I said it again): You have been propagating your anti-progressive, pro-dysfunction political message without accountability for too long. In President Obama's words, Enough! Count on us in the pragmatic progressive blogosphere to stand up and fight back. You do not represent progressivism or liberalism, and we are done letting you hijack it. You wanted a fight, didn't you? Well, you got one.

There's much, much more here: http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/08/too-bad-for-huffington-post-but-dumbest.html

[EFerrari]

168. If I wanted to read prose of that caliber, I'd go down to the high school

and ask the custodian to be let into the boy's bathroom. But, thanks anyway. :)

[ClarkUSA]

169. LOL! deaniac83's prose is higher in caliber than anything at FirePUMAlake.

[EFerrari]

172. I'm sure anyone reading your recommendation will consider the source. n/t

[ClarkUSA]

177. Yes, I hope they consider that I am not a fan of ridiculous Obama bashing as performed by PUMA Jane.

[MessiahRp]

187. PUMA is all you have.

You whip it out in every thread. Of course it says a lot about your intelligence level that you have one insult that you have to pull out over and over....

[ClarkUSA]

191. Well, I've observed PUMAs and Teabaggers will always whine no matter what. That's all they do.

All that complaining about and blame gaming of the President is a hallmark of their stock in trade, with their goals being exactly as deaniac83 described in his astute analysis:

FireDogLake is not a liberal blog. It's a Pseudo-Left-Libertarian extremist ideologue blog... whom the FDL rah-rah types act like, only from the Left. It's a characterization that fits them perfectly - they are more interested in tearing things down than building a country up, more interested in ideological podium-pounding than pragmatic solutions... If one side was busy spreading hatred and propaganda to increase wingnut turnout, the other... side was busy spreading hatred and propaganda to subdue Democratic turnout.

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/08/too-bad-for-huffington-post-but-dumbest.html

[jeff47]

200. Out of curiosity, is your goal to get us to associate juvenile insults and poor writing with

supporting Obama?

'cause you're doing a great job at that.

[inna]

203. exactly. personally, i could not think of a more counterproductive "supporter'.

[myrna minx]

236. No kidding. This thread is both embarrassing and illuminating at the same time.

It's a surreal GOTV strategy.

[Number23]

314. He is going OFF!! Good for him!

Firebagger is a term that combines FDL's hair-on-fire ridiculousness with Teabaggers (for example, opposing things just because President Obama supports them) - whom the FDL rah-rah types act like, only from the Left. It's a characterization that fits them perfectly - they are more interested in tearing things down than building a country up, more interested in ideological podium-pounding than pragmatic solutions.

You GO, deaniac!!! :applause: :applause: :applause:

Although I personally believe that Jane Hamsher and her ilk deserve as little attention as possible, it's good to see someone calling them out.

[ClarkUSA]

170. deaniac83: '... the "Dumbest Motherfuckers In The World" Are Fighting Back' (ThePeoplesView.net)

...FireDogLake is not a liberal blog. It's a Pseudo-Left-Libertarian extremist ideologue blog. But other than that, on the money. Why, yes, Sherlock, Firebagger is a term that combines FDL's hair-on-fire ridiculousness with Teabaggers (for example, opposing things just because President Obama supports them) - whom the FDL rah-rah types act like, only from the Left. It's a characterization that fits them perfectly - they are more interested in tearing things down than building a country up, more interested in ideological podium-pounding than pragmatic solutions. The bagger (both tea and fire) mentality is the reason our politics is in a rut. If one side was busy spreading hatred and propaganda to increase wingnut turnout, the other (firebaggers) side was busy spreading hatred and propaganda to subdue Democratic turnout.

By the way, can someone please tell me why criticism of whiners and Krugman is cause for clawing the chalkboard from Huffington Post, but the constant propagandist bashing of President Obama never gets a critical eye from the same folks?

Speaking of Firebaggers, her Majesty the Highness of FDL, Jane Hamsher, picked up on Terkel's article and went nuts with it. You know, the usual.

By the way, Ms. Terkel, you seem very upset about the OFA state director in New Mexico sending out an email pointing out the political and policy merits of the debt ceiling deal, an article that also calls out the firebaggers, but for some reason I cannot find our outrage article about Jane Hamsher - the Firebagger in Chief - calling Obama supporters the "dumbest motherfuckers in the world." Am I missing something or is your reporting just not objective?

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2011/08/too-bad-for-huffington-post-but-dumbest.html

[EFerrari]

173. It would probably be hard to find anyone who disagrees with that.

Okay, this is too easy, I'm going to burn some dinner now.

lol

[ClarkUSA]

175. So you agree with deaniac83 that "her Majesty of Highness of FDL, Jane Hamsher... went nuts"?

I do, too.

[jeff47]

193. Actually, the dumbest motherfuckers in the world are the people in OFA

who are attacking a newspaper columnist and a second-rate blogger.

It's not like OFA could be doing something important with their time and money. No, it's far more critical to punch more hippies.

[Aerows]

185. Well now

That's an intelligently written, mature response to criticism, and certainly a brilliant political strategy.

Not.

[JoeyT]

188. Bookmarking in case he loses his bid for reelection.

So I can link back to this to respond to "Why didn't the left vote for him?! WHY?!".
Treat people with contempt and they probably won't vote for you. It isn't that hard to grasp.

Edited to add: The saddest part isn't actually the contempt in it, it's how...well...stupid the person that wrote it sounds. It really does sound like it was written by a freeper. Or a ten year old that was raised by a freeper. No policy, just insults and whining.

Leave Obama Alone!

[gateley]

189. Can a "point person" be considered a staffer? nt

[Aerows]

194. Nothing good ever comes of playing divisive politics

Oh, I'm sure it feels good to tell people to shut up and get on a high horse, but if you do it enough, you eventually start to sound like an arrogant prick. That's what this person who sent this around sounds like.

People don't vote for arrogant pricks. Some of the "supporters" around here sound like arrogant pricks, too, and should realize what they sound like while they are busy representing themselves as supporters. Do you REALLY want people to associate being an arrogant prick with Obama?

It's just not good politics. It may feel good for now, but nothing will be gained by it (and potentially, much may be lost by it).

[readmoreoften]

207. Wait, isn't that guy on DU?

[Bluebear]

210. Without question

Same tone.

[amborin]

211. K&R; disgusting, & almost as bad as when Rahm Emanual said, "F-ck the UAW"

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2010/09/02/about-that-fuck-the-uaw-tax/

[Fumesucker]

212. Net recommendation: +81 votes (Your vote: +1)

[Douglas Carpenter]

213. "The Republican Party fears its base. The Democratic Party loathes its base." - David Frum

I am sure these unflattering words reflect the attitude of the overwhelming majority of professional political operatives working for most Democratic Party campaigns. While most Republican Party operatives show tremendous respect to even the nuttiest right-wing activist - Most Democratic Party operatives hold progressive activist in utter contempt. They want their money and their votes and occasionally they may want them to ring some door bells and what have you - but to be kept at arms length less they cause an embarrassment. That is how they look at liberal activist.

[DirkGently]

241. It's a losing attitude. Center-right votes Republican.

[Enthusiast]

214. The debt ceiling compromise is just wonderful

if you are a Republican and got 98% of what you wanted.

[dash_bannon]

218. Who's running the show?

President Obama is listening to the oligarchs. He is a politician. The one's pulling the strings in Washington make the rules now. Armies of lobbyists, mostly corporate, do the bidding of the uber-rich.

We need to build groups and organizations that force the hands of politicians. That was the value of unions.

We also need a media network that keeps us informed in a way that is meaningful and has relevance to our lives.

The rich own the media. They control the political debates.

The Tea Baggers aren't the only ones who have a voice. We just need to make ourselves heard.

[DeSwiss]

219. Fuck 'em all. - K&R n/t

[Hissyspit]

220. Krugman responds:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/18/hippie-punching

August 18, 2011, 4:20 AM
Hippie Punching

Via Greg Sargent, I learn that some people in the Obama campaign really, really dislike people like me, who complain when the president gives in to GOP blackmail.

Well, at least they’re paying attention.

I would say this: on one side you have the GOP, which responds to completely crazed Tea Party demands by doing all it can to assure the hard right that it’s on its side. On the other, you have the Democratic establishment or at least part thereof, which responds to complaints from its own base that it’s going too easy on the crazies by lashing out at the base, with a bit of bearded-professor bashing on the side.

Way to strengthen your bargaining position, guys.

[fascisthunter]

244. Lol... no shit... how stupid and immature

absolutely incredibly stupid.

[inna]

318. Krugman is way too (irrationally so) 'kind' to Obama; I miss the different Krugman who didn't

use to mince words and who used to be one of my favorite writers of all time... during the bush era.


these days, Paul sounds like he's being brutally (self?)-censored, most of the time. :shrug:

[Raksha]

221. K & R - Good, I welcome their hatred!

It's always good to know where you stand with someone.

[Ganja Ninja]

223. Way to kick off your 2012 re-election campaign Mr President.

I want to take this opportunity to apologize for voting for you and contributing to your campaign back in 2008. I've learned a valuable lesson and I won't repeat the same mistake again.

[fasttense]

228. Wow, it seems this administration reserves it's most hateful screeds

for their own voters and supporters. I've never heard them talk that way about RepubliCONS. I wonder why they hate their liberal base more than they hate their political opponents?

[orbitalman]

231. K & R

[SHRED]

233. it is obvious that the current Democratic Party disdains the Liberal/Left

Rahm's name calling.
Biden's name calling.
CA Democratic Progressive Caucus is in limbo because they had the audacity to call for a primary challenge.
Now this NM OFA nonsense.

--

[MadHound]

234. It's become almost pathological how this administration's gone about pissing off key constituencies,

The left, teachers, progressives, anti-war folks, etc.

One has to start to wonder if he actually wants to get reelected.

[valerief]

235. How come we only attack terrorists who are outside US borders?

Why can't the president bomb the terrorists within, too? Why do they have to be embraced?

[certainot]

238. was there any politics involved inthe deal? because if there was the L blogos got beat as usual by

the radio. again. so did obama.

the teabaggers are nothing more than RW talk radio dittoheads packaged and given a new name and buss passes.

by ignoring RW radio while it gets a free speech free ride to trash everything liberal and swiftboat our politiciand hte Left guarantees that Dems have to compromise more than they would and krugman who has no idea that RW radio is the right's best weapon, analyzes in a talk radio vacuum while it is used to dominate all messaging. obama, for his part has mentioned limbaugh and talk radio , even in a state of the union, but hte Lefty blogosphere ignored it. but he they should be referencing limbaugh directly, as the real leader of the GOP.

[DirkGently]

239. Wonder if the campaign has been infiltrated. This is a great way to alienate Democrats.

[fascisthunter]

240. Wonder if this Staffer posts here

[fascisthunter]

243. self-delete

[Beacool]

249. One hell of a way to try to energize the base..........

:eyes:


:crazy:

[noiretextatique]

256. i guess he doesn't *really* welcome criticism

nor does he want to be held accountable. not surprising.

[Inuca]

285. He? Who is the "he" you are talking about?

Did Obama send the memo?

Incidentaly http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/17/1008021/-“The-views-expressed-in-this-email-do-not-represent-the-views-of-the-campaign”?via=siderec

[Samantha]

265. Obama campaign staffer morphs into Stink Bug

That is the true headline as I see it.

Sam

[WinkyDink]

268. When did Official Voices become Wise-A** Frat-Boy Puerility? "Oh noes" makes me want to slap his

stupid face.

[meow mix]

270. "screeching"

guess we know how they feel about our concerns.. its just "screeching"

[dotymed]

276. I have to conclude from this and several other comments

that Obama, the DLC, the DNC and it's constituents no longer believe that "lefty(?) liberals" are a part of the Democratic party. I consider myself a Progressive Democrat but according to the DLC, et.al., I am a "lefty liberal."

It certainly has become a "Brave New World," the people who once comprised the majority of the Democratic party, no longer are considered Democrats. It is amazing what a couple of thousand obscenely wealthy people

and a handful of monopolized corporations can do. What they have done. It has to be our turn by now.

[JDPriestly]

277. Well, if this memo is accurate (and I have no idea who wrote it or

whether it reflects reality), it is the first time that the deal has been made even this clear to me.

This memo (and the memo it links to which must be read) puts Obama's deal in a good light and explains some interesting details, the political strategy behind the deal as well as a little about the trigger. We shall see what happens.

It states that the Medicare cuts would just cut the Medicare providers' payments and points out that those providers, at least the big corporate ones like the pharmaceuticals mostly donate to Republicans.

But cuts to Medicare providers will be passed on to Medicare recipients in the form of higher co-pays. Combined with cuts to Medicaid, that could harm the nursing homes and geriatry specialists who provide to the very poorest in their most vulnerable, later years -- nursing homes and hospice care in particular. And those cuts will ultimately shorten lives and make dying more painful and more troubling to the elderly and their families.

We are already at the lower end of the list of developed countries in terms of life expectancy. We don't need to also fall lower on the misery index.

But then -- since those guys on Wall Street and VIPs like Cheney can afford to keep their hearts pumping without Medicare . . . . why should they care?

The linked memo really emphasizes the good things about the deal -- most of which I had not heard much about before. Still, the deal takes a lot of money out of the economy and that will have a very, very bad effect. Also, it doesn't really seem to include any incentive to hire people -- or at least not enough of an incentive.

[truebrit71]

284. Wow, a little early to form the circular firing-squad isn't it?

He won't say SHIT about/to the Teahadists, but continues to shit on the liberals/left...Good luck winning the election next year with that strategy...

[Chimichurri]

289. If this guy offended Republicans, he'd already been fired.

[William769]

290. K&R.

[DirtyDawg]

297. These people better...

...shut the 'eff' up. Sure, we know Obama ain't the man we thought he was...and, sure, we don't really expect much more out of him in another term...but it these SOBs don't watch out with the bashing of the 'true left', they'll find out that some of us - and maybe enough to cost him re-election - will decide that it'll be better to 'know' who the enemy is and work toward overthrowin' his a$$, than to 'know' you've got a leader that's engaged in a 'rope-a-dope' tactic and we're the 'dopes'.

[Duval]

301. Bad move! Very bad! :( n/t

[Le Taz Hot]

334. Enjoy that one-term presidency, Mr. President.

Anyone else you want to throw under that bus?