"Jane Hamsher calls for the resignation of Rep Lynn Woolsey as co-chair of the [CPC]"

[ProSense]

Greg Sargent:

* Jane Hamsher calls for the resignation of Rep Lynn Woolsey as co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, partly because Woolsey told me she’d back the Senate bill with a good reconciliation fix even without the public option.

I want to clarify one point I should have made the other day: Woolsey also told me she’d introduce a bill creating a public option on the same day as voting for the Senate measure.

:rofl:

[KingFlorez]

1. Lynn Woolsey is such a DINO

Get a good progressive to run against her in the primary :sarcasm:

[depakid]

2. It's generally foolhardy to laugh at issues that divide your constituencies

Particularly if one was at one time a major advocate of that very position themselves.

The larger issue of course has much less to do with abandoning the public option, but with the widespread- and growing perception that Democrats are unwilling to stand up and fight for their principles (or for ordinary Americans).

Frustration with that looks to be a big part of the dynamic going into the elections of 2010.

[dave29]

56. you do understand that the same could be said

on both sides. Along with the concept of ridicule, assumption of dishonesty, and constant negative interpretation of motive re: the subject in question?

[impik]

84. Jane Hmasher is hardly the constituencies. Nothing will be good enough for her

[Jennicut]

3. The purity tests by Hamsher are ridiculous.

Lynn Woolsey? I mean, can we find anyone more progressive then that?

[CreekDog]

13. She's gone Nader on us

first Sanders and now Woolsey.

the strategy being: find the strongest advocate for our cause in congress and then kneecap them if they don't profess 100% agreement with us.

insane.

but i'll take Woolsey over Hamsher any day of the week --Woolsey has done a lot more for liberals than Hamsher ever has.

[eridani]

30. Right. Only a "purist" would demand a public option NOW

--that 2/3 of the public favors.

[Cha]

4. hamsher's a dividing tool.

[Arkana]

5. I...just...what.

Seriously? I mean, really?

What the fuck.

What's next, primarying Raul Grijalva because he didn't call Obama a corporatist tool to his face?

[dionysus]

6. i guess jane's up to 14:39 out of that 15 minutes...

:crazy:

[jenmito]

7. Jane Hamsher is NUTS. n/t

[Arkana]

8. Yeah, but remember--anyone who accuses her of having less

than pure motives for teaming up with Grover Norquist is a DLC FASCIST SELLOUT.

[depakid]

9. What do you think her motives were?

[jefferson_dem]

17. Shallow attention-getting, division, conflict, failure ...

and some utterly disgusting "biases" which should be crystal clear to anyone who's been paying attention.

[depakid]

22. My bet is that it's more of a lashing out in frustration at the failure to stand up for her issues

It's also interesting to note that while she's getting a lot of vitriol- some of it well deserved, many of the most pissed off about it don't seem to hold the administration to the same standard when it makes common cause with some equally odious people and groups.

A recent example: going before the Chamber of Commerce and lashing out at teachers (while praising a former Bush official).

Pretty divisive stuff (though I won't make any judgments on what sorts of biases it may or may not reveal).

[jenmito]

10. Yeah...

that's what they say. But they say LOTS of things that aren't true.

[jenmito]

11. "Net recommendation: +5 votes (Your vote: +1)"

:)

[CreekDog]

12. She's a fool

or thinks we are.

she's gone Nader on us. she's trying to undercut perhaps the strongest voices for single payer, the very people that would pass single payer on their own if they could.

Hamsher has to be the biggest fool ever for thinking that undercutting Woolsey advances health care reform --kneecapping our own champion is about the stupidest thing we could do.

[suzie]

74. +100

[burning rain]

14. I disagree with Hamsher.

My view is that the sorry Senate health care bill is still a policy improvement on balance, and should be passed. But, I do think any attempts to pass the public option later, not as part of the reconciliation fix, will clearly fail, since there aren't even 50 honest votes for it, and those who promise to bring the public option up again later know it will fail, so that public option is functioning simply as boob bait. If it comes up later and is subject to the 60-vote rule, though, I bet you'll see a majority, though fewer than 60, vote for it, with some who don't really want it seeing an easy opportunity to curry favor with the base without alienating corporate interests by actually passing the thing. You know the saying--a legislator almost never gets punished for voting for something that fails, or against something that passes.

[Phx_Dem]

15. Fuck Jane Hamsher.

Who the fuck is she to call for anyone's resignation?

[freddie mertz]

71. A citizen? It is not like she has no right to speak out, is it?

I don't understand all this endless bashing.....

[jefferson_dem]

16. Hamsher is a clown.

Wonder how her Teabagger-Firebagger union is working out. Now that would be one ugly-ass baby...

[jeanpalmer]

18. Yes get rid of the DINO's

Make them stand for something. They're disgusting, going along to get along. They always collapse in the end. Remember when they were grandstanding to cut off funding for the wars about two years ago. Now, they're quiet as lambs, love Obama's wars. Get rid of them. We won't miss them.

[Arkana]

19. I really, REALLY think you should do some research

on Lynn Woolsey before you spout that crap.

[jeanpalmer]

23. My research shows

she's caving to the insurance companies, bigtime.

[Arkana]

24. So your solution is to kneecap one of the most liberal members of the House

because she compromised ONCE to get a very important piece of legislation passed?

What's it like in your world?

[jeanpalmer]

25. We don't need compromisers

We have plenty of them. We need people who will stand up for what's right, not people who will kneecap the guy making $40,000 with mandated exorbitantly priced health insurance. She's going along to get along, really weak.

[Arkana]

28. "We don't need compromisers"

You realize the inanity of that statement, right? You'd like a Congress where NOTHING gets passed? Ever?

[jeanpalmer]

31. We don't need people who compromise their principles

and that's what Woolsey is in the process of doing.

Instead of weak-kneed people like Woolsey, we need a whole Congress of Jane Hamshers.

[ProSense]

35. "we need a whole Congress of Jane Hamshers"

Nuts?

I can see it now: the Hamsher-Bachmann bill to declare teabagging the national pastime.

:rofl:

[jeanpalmer]

43. I'm sure you will

:rofl: as you send in your mandated insurance payment. :rofl:

[CreekDog]

39. I don't think anyone should listen to you because you don't know Lynn Woolsey

she's tougher than you are!

[saltpoint]

53. Thank Christ there's only one Jane Hamsher and may she be

abducted by aliens in a space ship as soon as can be arranged.

[mmonk]

87. Let us know when the Republicans, DLC, and Blue Dogs

compromise.

[eridani]

32. "Important" legislation that permanently ratifies the status--

--of 50-64 year olds as disposable human garbage? If the legislation has an excise tax and no public option, it is nothing but a policy and political disaster of enormous proportions.

[cali]

40. so you won't have any trouble showing us the evidence of that, sweetie?

and no, dear, the fact that she'll vote for the legislation without a public option is not evidence that she's caved to the insurance companies. Present evidence.

[sabrina 1]

37. Woolsey has disappointed more than Jane Hamsher lately.

And Hamsher is not the only one asking her to resign as co-chair of the CPC.

She is backing Blue Dog, Republican with a 'D' after her name, Jane Harman rather than Marcy Winograd who is challenging Harman who badly needs to go, and is everything a progressive ought to be.

Lynne Woolsey should be ousted as co-chair of the CPC for supporting Blue Dog Jane Harman

This is completely unacceptable. The co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus is throwing her support behind a Blue Dog named Jane Harman for reelection in 2010, and who happens to be the representative in my own district in California.

This is only one of the many people who have asked her to resign from the CPC as a result of her support for Harman. So, Hamsher, while she gets the attention here, is only one among many who are angry at Woolsey these days.

This country is in a fight for its very soul. Our last hope in the opinion of many is to start ousting the Blue Dogs from Congress and replacing them with real Progressives like Marcy Winograd. The race is close so far, Winograd is in a real fight with Harman. Harman represents everything Woolsey has said she is against in the past, Winograd should be her dream Congressional colleague.

We know that the reason we can end these wars, stop torture, get a universal healthcare system among other issues, is because of Congress. The presidency is NOT where the effort is going to be from now on. It's clear that the president cannot do anything without Congress. So, the power is with Congress. This is so important and Woolsey is letting an opportunity to begin the process of taking back this country from people like Jane Harman slip away.

Forget Hamsher, she is a blogger. Woolsey does need to know that we no longer can tolerate this kind of betrayal and it is up to us to do that.

[Spazito]

20. Geez, she just gets worse and worse....

way over the top now. That's what you get for buddying up with the likes of Norquist, Schlafly and the teabaggers. Total loss of credibility.

[saltpoint]

21. Hamsher is so marginal now she's done dropped off the cliff.

Jane, in the OFF-CHANCE that you are on DU these days, you might want to get a clue. Make a film, goddammit. You're very good at it. I'll buy a ticket.

But your political instincts blow.

[BlueIdaho]

26. Jane? Jane who? nt.

[saltpoint]

27. Perhaps Jane Hamsher should take a leave of absence from her bitter

blogging and build a primary challenge to President Obama.

Go for it, Jane.

[jenmito]

29. She is to Dems. what Liz Cheney is to Repubs. They've both gone so extreme

that they meet in Crazy Town. And more and more people are starting to see that.

[JI7]

33. not sure it's the same as Hamsher joined with some wingnuts

so i question whether she ever was really with us in this.

[depakid]

36. Seems a lot of people from various constituencies are asking the same question

about Obama- for similar reasons.

Just an observation....

[freddie mertz]

72. That is a ridiculous comparison.

Hyperbole is running amok in this thread,

[jenmito]

80. Only to someone who thinks Hamsher is right to call for someone as liberal as Lynn Woolsey

to resign.

[freddie mertz]

93. It's not like she is out there trying to spook the public into thinking it is unsafe.

Lynne is way worse.

[ncteechur]

34. Hamsher and FDL has jumped the shark.

[saltpoint]

52. Yep. Or even, have become the shark itself, ego-prowling the

coastline for their next chomp at Democrats.

The Norquist thing was outrageous. One could say, Well, Hamsher is TRYING to be outrageous to delineate the horror of the overall system to the point where she would pull a reckless, ill-considered, and traitorous stunt with a corrupt and cynical asshole like Grover Norquist;

OR

One could say that Hamsher and FDL have become so unfocused and unstable and unprofessional that they don't have a fucking clue what they're even doing from one day to the next.

I used to have that site on my Favorites list.

Not any more.

[Cali_Democrat]

38. The same Jane Hamsher thats pals with Grover Norquist and thinks blackface is funny?

I remember her. What a pathetic person she is.

[RFKHumphreyObama]

41. And who complains about sexism but then has no problems making sexist remarks about Caroline Kennedy

Yup, that's the same one!

[saltpoint]

49. She also raided and burned the village of Barbara Boxer a while back,

as if Barbara Boxer was just not pure enough for Our Miss Jane.

Hamsher does shrill. She does the ambush. She likes attention. Her politics suck.

[tishaLA]

66. Posts 38, 41, and 49 are a remarkable summation of an unremarkable person

[saltpoint]

69. Hi, tishaLA.

Yes, and yes again.

And anyway, I'm a strong fan of Barbara Boxer.

[jeanpalmer]

81. Isn't Woolsey about to vote

for Max Baucus' health care bill? He's been pummeled here for it, but Woolsey gets a free ride.

[JTFrog]

42. Why does that not surprise me. FDL is pathetic. n/t

[mmonk]

44. I agree with Jane in her passion and also respect Woolsey.

We aren't getting a public option now (when our numbers are the strongest) without rejecting the current Senate Bill. We won't get one later no matter what they promise or what they introduce now IN ADDITION TO the Senate Bill. Jane is a realist that is tired of the bullshit and I don't blame her.

[angelicwoman]

45. You left out Hamsher's argument about the bill being a blow to women's right to choose

That's the bad part of threads that try to summarize articles in two paragraphs, leaving out key info (indeed, the main reason behind Hamsher's call for Woolsey's resignation) that was contained in the first paragraph of the original article.

[mmonk]

46. Agreed.

[ProSense]

47. Here's what I left out:

Statement by Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, on Final Stages of Health Care Reform

“As a trusted provider of health care to millions of women and families, Planned Parenthood is committed to fixing our broken health care system and guaranteeing quality, affordable health care for all Americans.

“Nobody knows better than the doctors, nurses, and other health professionals in local Planned Parenthood health centers how urgently families need affordable, quality health care. If enacted, President Obama’s proposal would extend health care coverage to tens of millions of women and families, guarantee access to affordable preventive screenings for cancer and other life-saving tests, protect women against gender discrimination by private insurers, end the practice of dropping coverage because of pre-existing conditions, and significantly increase access to reproductive health care. The proposal also includes a commonsense provision to expand family planning under Medicaid, which would significantly increase access to essential preventive health care for millions of women.

“Given the promise of health care reform to extend coverage to millions of Americans, it would be a travesty if the current health care reform effort resulted in the loss of reproductive health care coverage, including abortion, which most women currently have under private health insurance plans. If the current Senate language introduced by Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) is maintained, it would result in the most significant restriction in access to abortion coverage in the nearly 35 years since the U.S. Congress first adopted the Hyde Amendment.

“Under the burdensome Nelson provision in the Senate health care reform bill, it is anticipated that most private health insurers would no longer offer coverage for abortion. Since most women with private health insurance have coverage for abortion, the Nelson provision would take away coverage that women have now. For that reason, Planned Parenthood opposed the Nelson provision when it was proposed and continues to oppose it.

“Congress must fix the Nelson provision as part of health care reform and guarantee that reform will not result in women losing benefits they currently have.

“Planned Parenthood is also deeply concerned about increased pressure by Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI) and his anti-choice allies in the House to reintroduce the Stupak abortion ban. The Senate already rejected the Stupak abortion ban because women across the country spoke out in opposition to it.

“The White House and congressional leaders must ensure that the Stupak ban will not be enacted through any legislative bill or amendment related to health care reform or any other legislative or regulatory vehicle.

“We cannot let anti-choice individuals and groups use the reform process to achieve their narrow political agenda to end access to safe and legal abortion in the United States. Planned Parenthood praises President Obama for his leadership in moving health care reform forward. We stand ready to work with President Obama and the congressional leadership for health care reform that meets the needs of women and all Americans.”

Hamsher is an idiot.

[jenmito]

48. I recommend this post. Thanks for the facts instead of talking points. n/t

[Cha]

65. Planned Parenthood is Reality based..

not something hamsher recognizes to flamebait.

[RBInMaine]

50. Hamsher can go pound sand up her ass. She got in bed with Norquist. Piss on her.

[RBInMaine]

51. Not happy bony-ass? Go run for office yourself instead of bitching night and day.

[Cha]

75. That's what she does..

bitch.

[angelicwoman]

94. Classy...criticizing the physical appearance of people one disagrees with n/t

[Arkana]

54. Wish I could rec this thread again--Hamsher's FDL devotees have unrecced you

into oblivion.

[Cha]

55. Yeah, I'm thinking

they don't want the news out of what a fooking tool she is..otherwise, why not be proud of the fact that she's calling for Woolsley to resign from her co-chair of CPC? Hmmmm?

[Bobbie Jo]

57. More importantly...what does Grover think?

:rofl:

[angelicwoman]

95. Are you suggesting that Hamsher and Grover always agree n/t?

[Bobbie Jo]

96. Actually...

It was a joke (as it should be).

Hence the :rofl: :think:

What did you think I was "suggesting?"

Or...did you just want to start something?

[mmonk]

58. Let's look at the facts. Jane is asking her to resign as co-chair.

We all know why. Take the following from the pieces noted:

“He doesn’t believe the Senate has 51 votes for the public option,” Woolsey said, characterizing Obama’s remarks to the assembled.

But Woolsey says she’s now a definite Yes on the Senate bill, provided the reconciliation fix is adequate, even if it lacks a public option.

But what did Woolsey http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/president-obama/house-liberals-write-directly-to-obama-no-public-option-no-support/">say they were going to do?

“Any bill that does not provide, at a minimum, a public option built on the Medicare provider system and with reimbursement based on Mediare rates — not negotiated rates — is unacceptable,” reads the letter, which was sent over by a source. It was signed by Reps. Lynn Woolsey and Raul Grijalva, the two leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

“A health reform bill without a robust public option will not achieve the health reform this country so desperately needs,” the letter continues. “We cannot vote for anything less.”

Also

Woolsey: "Oh I will vote against anything that does not include ... and it's got to be real. I mean, you can call it anything you want ... I believe there are enough of us, among the 120 in the tri-caucus and the progressive caucus, that can stop any votes.... Any health care reform that does not include a strong, robust public option for all Americans will not be health care reform."

Under the circumstances, one might say Hamsher is trying to make Woolsey honest. With the promises made, Hamsher is certainly within her rights as an activist to ask Woolsey to step down as Co-chair given Woolsey's previous statements.

I understand people here want the Bill to pass regardless. However, the fault of broken promises does not lie with Hamsher nor is this a negative reflection on her character.

[Cha]

59. hamsher is a grandstanding blogging idiot while

Lynn Woolsley is out there trying to actually get a good solid foundation for our Health Care Reform and yes, horrifyingly enough..that might call for compromise. Something hamsher doesn't do from her self-inflated pedestal.

Fuck the call for Lynn's resignation from the CPC..

[mmonk]

60. Your hatred of Jane doesn't change facts nor any admiration

of Woolsey either. She isn't an idiot because she expects people to stand behind what they say. Doing little may very well be the only way to improve one of the world's worst systems. But say it and don't say you won't compromise and then do.

[Cha]

61. hamsher's a fucking tool..what's to like?

[mmonk]

62. What's to like about people who say one thing and do another?

When one side compromises 100% of the time, that means one side doesn't and is in control 100% of the time. Pardon some of us if we don't care for it.

[Cha]

63. Rec this thread to show how clever hamsher is.

[mmonk]

64. Are you asking me to?

[sabrina 1]

67. Reason flies out the window, once personalities become involved.

Regardless of Hamsher, and sometimes I wonder if people like her are used to create the knee-jerk, non-thought-out reaction we are seeing in this thread, causing people to ignore the main issue, are not volunteering to become distractions from those issues.

Democrats are about to cave and vote against what they claimed were their own interests once again, and all most people in this thread can think of is Jane Hamsher, an unimportant blogger. If it IS a strategy, it's working.

The fact is, regardless of Hamsher, Woolsey has twice, in the past few months, taken actions that should be questioned and she should and has lost some of the respect people had for her as a result.

Supporting Jane Harman, Blue Dog and pro-war, pro-spying on the American people, anti progressive policies etc. was the first major betrayal by Woolsey. Now, no matter how you try to excuse it, she has joined the president in flip-flopping on an issue she claimed was so important to her that nothing would persuade her to vote for it.

But here, by cleverly using Hamsher to deliver the bad news, that very important fact is being overlooked while everyone joins in the game, probably the hoped for result, of bashing Hamsher. But not everyone is so easily distracted as can be seen by the reaction to her support for Harman against Winograd. If she continues on this path, she may find herself being primaried also. This country needs strong Democrats who do not flip-flop on issues as important as these. We cannot afford any more flip-floppers.

[suzie]

76. Do the primary-everyone-purists have a number of Democratic Congresspeople and Senators that would

please them?

If we had only 20 Democratic Senators, would that satisfy people?

Maybe 75 Democratic Congresspeople? We'd have a "pure" Party and and a "pure" Congressional group, but Republican dictatorship.

Is that truly what people want?

[sabrina 1]

82. What do YOU think people want?

I have no problem with purists. The Founding Fathers were purists and they got things done. My problem is with those who are not so pure, who are bought and paid for by big corporations and have forgotten who elected them.

The people are sick of politicians lying to the people. I don't care what their record USED to be, when they flip flop on an issue as important as the lives and deaths of the American people, they are not getting a pass from me, nor from a great many others these days.

Woolsey, Obama, and all other politicians are merely citizens who asked us for a job. We gave it to them, and they are screwing up. When that happens, people get fired. Now, if you are one of those people who gets starry eyed over politicians, no doubt you will defend them no matter how bad a job they are doing. I am not one of those people.

As far as I am concerned politicians are there to do a job. I don't care about them other than how well or not, they do that job. The job they were entrusted with is far too important for us to be as tolerant as you seem prepared to be. People are dying, everywhere and that is what I care about. Jane Harman is one of the reasons they are dying and Lynn Woolsey knows that we want to rid this Congress of Blue Dog obstructionists like her, yet she has been campaigning for her. That, as someone else said above, is unacceptable.

Politicians who betray the voters do not deserve their support, it's as simple as that. And when they learn they cannot expect support unless they do what they were hired to do, they will be 'better democrats'. You, otoh, want to continue letting them think, as they always have, that democrats may not be happy with them, but they will vote for them anyhow, 'because they have nowhere else to go'. Well, those days are over.

[suzie]

89. The Founding Fathers were purists?

Are you seriously making reference to the Founding Fathers? The guys who were such "purists" that they didn't even prohibit the slave trade in the Constitution, much less slavery itself? Those Founding Fathers?

I'd say they were the furthest thing from today's "purists", for whom any sort of compromise seems abhorrent. The FF enshrined slavery in the founding documents of the nation--which required a continuing series of huge political compromises to deal with that peculiar institution.

Not to mention the compromise that most of the FF had to make with their personal consciences.

[sabrina 1]

91. They had a goal, they could not be dissuaded from it

At the time it was a pretty radical goal, sort of like, although a lot more radical, wanting a Single Payer system of healthcare today. The purists who want a single healthcare system, you did call them purists didn't you, are not nearly as radical as the FF were and in fact far more willing to compromise.

I doubt you would have liked liked the FF very much considering how you feel about those of us who want politicians simply to keep their promises.

So yes, the FF were definitely purists to answer your question.

[suzie]

98. The goal of the Founding Fathers was to bring forth a new government that forever

enshrined slavery in the United States?

That's an odd kind of purism.

[mmonk]

86. Good point. The Harmon episode opened my eyes to the fact

she might not be suited to co-chair the Progressive Caucus. In fact, I find it more disturbing.

[Arkana]

73. Lynn Woolsey isn't batshit insane

and realizes that maybe it's not going to happen all at once. So she's decided to help lay the groundwork for future changes--like the public option that Obama said he would revisit once this was over.

[mmonk]

85. I made no claim she was.

I don't use such tactics unless I'm discussing someone like Dick Cheney.

[suzie]

77. Someone who sides with Grover Norquist is within her rights to ask anyone to step down?

[mmonk]

99. What does she side with Norquist about? Ideology? No but of

course you know that.

[Cha]

100. She's full of hot fetid air so the gas gets awfully noxious.

[Lord Helmet]

68. Jane is utterly tone deaf here.

[freddie mertz]

70. Why is this funny exactly?

I don't get it.

[jenmito]

79. It's funny because she's so over-the-top it's hilarious. She has truly jumped the shark. n/t

[freddie mertz]

92. I still don't see it. The funny I mean.

It's not an especially funny subject, for one thing.

[Cha]

78. Why are the recs down to zero..ashamed

of hamsher? I rec this..I want this news out there.

[SeattleGirl]

83. Okay, Jane, whatever you say.

:eyes:

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

88. Jeff in Milwaukee calls for Jane Hamster to shut the hell up...

You never were a person of any consequence.

Now you're just embarrassing yourself.

[Raineyb]

90. Gee. I guess it's unreasonable to expect the co-chair of the Congressional PROGRESSIVE Caucus

to actually support a progressive rather than a blue dog POS like Jane Harmon.

:shrug:

I don't see what it is to you anyway. Haven't you already made it clear that you only want to hear from people who have their noses well ensconced in the DLC's backside?

[Cha]

97. Good for Lynn Woolsley..actually trying

to get Health Care Reform established instead of a regressive stale mate that grandstanders like hamsher want.

[Cha]

101. Kick to the front..since it's unrec..it will go

back to the 1st page.

[Cha]

102. Kick