Extreme Liberal's Blog

Where Liberalism Is Alive and Well!

When Hamshers Attack – The AARP And Seniors Are Jane’s New Target (Updated)

I follow Jane Hamsher on Twitter so I can keep an eye on what she is up to in her quest to have monuments built to her and have her worshippers wiping her feet. She is the one leading the charge to primary President Obama, anyone who thinks she isn’t, needs to look into it a little more. Her irrational hatred for President Obama isn’t new, she had it during the primaries in 2008 and has never let it go. My personal theory is that she doesn’t respect President Obama because he is black, brilliant, charismatic and doesn’t give a shit what this person Jane Hamsher thinks. As I’ve tweeted several times, 99.99% of people in polls say “who the fuck is Jane Hamsher?” Unfortunately, the rapidly deteriorating MSNBC likes to trot her out every couple of days to spread her lies, that’s why I feel the need to expose the type of person she is and how she is a parasite on the liberal community and a very petty person.

One of the latest targets for her vitriol is the AARP. Apparently Jane doesn’t approve, in her infinite wisdom, of their ideas about Social Security and has begun one of her lie filled, propaganda campaigns…against the most powerful lobby in the US…nice plan Jane. It all stems from the AARP’s decision to belly up to the bar on the negotiations about Social Security and ideas for saving it. How has Jane been characterizing it?

Tweets from the “Veal Pen” of Jane Hamsher

Fmr Obama Social Security adviser Eric Kingson: With AARP Supporting Social Security Cuts, Time to Burn My AARP Card:

As AARP Abandons Social Security, Firedoglake Refuses to Give Up the Fight

Why AARP’s Support for Social Security Cuts Matters

AARP has Been Talking for Months About Being Open to Social Security Cuts

Save Social Security, burn your AARP card:

Dear AARP: Enough With the Weasel Words. Will You or Won’t You?

Those tweets included links to blog posts that Jane has written that are just filled with lies and mischaracterizations like the following…

Much of the divergence of opinion hinges on what one makes of AARP’s attempts at damage control. After AARP’s policy director, John Rother, told the Wall Street Journal on Friday that they were open to cutting Social Security benefits, AARP issued a clarification supposedly “denying” that this was true. Or at least that’s how most people interpreted it. “Oh, don’t worry, that was a gaffe. AARP has clarified for the record that it’s not true.”

The Wall Street Journal apparently mischaracterized what was said to them and started this mess that Jane has waded into and shown her ignorance and vile tactics, against senior citizens, no less. The Wall Street Journal piece is behind a wall, but the AARP issued a statement reaffirming their support for Social Security and making clear that they do not support benefit cuts. How does Jane characterize it, “AARP issued a clarification supposedly “denying” that this was true.” Supposedly “denying” it was true? Jane, you ignorant…oh wait. They actually did deny it. Like Richard Pryor said, “Who you gonna believe, me, or your lying eyes?” From the AARP…(emphasis mine)

AARP Has Not Changed Its Position on Social Security 

Reaffirms that program must be strengthened to maintain critical benefits

WASHINGTON – AARP CEO A. Barry Rand offered the following statement in response to inaccurate media stories on the association’s policy on Social Security:

“Let me be clear – AARP is as committed as we’ve ever been to fighting to protect Social Security for today’s seniors and strengthening it for future generations.  Contrary to the misleading characterization in a recent media story, AARP has not changed its position on Social Security.

“First, we are currently fighting some proposals in Washington to cut Social Security to reduce a deficit it did not cause.  Social Security should not be used as a piggy bank to solve the nation’s deficit.  Any changes to this lifeline program should happen in a separate, broader discussion and make retirement more secure for future generations, not less.

[...]

“Second, we have maintained for years – to our members, the media and elected officials – that long term solvency is key to protecting and strengthening Social Security for all generations, and we have urged elected officials in Washington to address the program’s long-term challenges in a way that’s fair for all generations.

“It has long been AARP’s policy that Social Security should be strengthened to provide adequate benefits and that it is sufficiently financed to ensure solvency with a stable trust fund for the next 75 years.  It has also been a long held position that any changes would be phased in slowly, over time, and would not affect any current or near term beneficiaries

So because AARP wants to be a part of the negotiations that have already been going on without them, Jane has begun her campaign of lies to slander the organization, for what reason, I have no idea. I think her vitriol speaks for itself, really. This tweet is just crazy, “As AARP Abandons Social Security, Firedoglake Refuses to Give Up the Fight”. As you can see from the actual statement from the AARP, the last thing they are doing is abandoning Social Security and the fact that Jane would type that massive lie shows the type of person she is, the very worst kind of propagandist, playing on the fears of the elderly.

Another gem from Jane, “Save Social Security, burn your AARP card:”. She thinks that by burning their AARP cards, that they are going to somehow benefit from it? AARP is the most powerful lobbying group in the country by many accounts and as their website says all over it, they are committed to the program and are going to continue to fight for the people they represent. Jane’s blatant mischaracterization of their position as “abandoning” social security, when their entire mission revolves around strengthening such programs for the people they represent, is a complete fabrication. I’m still trying to figure out why Jane has taken this tact.

My hope is that she continues her downward spiral into irrelevancy and keeps revealing the type of vile person she is. I have written extensively about her because I truly think she is a parasite on the liberal community and is damaging our causes by her actions. I wonder if her reason isn’t to try to drive a wedge between the left (which MSNBC likes to trot Jane out to represent) and the AARP. Her attack on the AARP and senior citizens makes absolutely no sense, unless it is for political reasons. And lastly, I’m sure the fact that the CEO of AARP is black has nothing to do with it, at least I really hope it doesn’t, but with Jane’s “blackface incident” from years ago, I’m not cutting her any slack.

Update: Thanks to @snkscoyote on Twitter

Roll Call is reporting that the GOP has now targeted the AARP as the next supposed “liberal” group that they want to take down. They are some stupid motherfuckers, if you ask me. Hell yea, us Democrats will take the senior vote anyday. Thanks. But it raises an interesting point that Jane Hamsher and the Republicans are very coincidently targeting the same group at the same time. Hmmmmm, From Roll Call…

Republicans have launched an assault on AARP, which joins a growing list of groups supportive of the Democrats’ agenda that are being targeted by conservatives.

House Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee on Wednesday released a report that accuses the influential senior citizens organization of having a conflict of interest because it will financially benefit from the health care overhaul that the group heavily lobbied for last year. AARP collects royalties from endorsing health insurance policies and other products.

About these ads

June 24, 2011 - Posted by | Jane Hamsher, Politics | ,

14 Comments »

  1. Perhaps this is “Elitest” of me, but i don’t follow “twitter” “fox news” or the supermarket tabloids. But i do wish you the best of luck.

    Comment by Maria Krasinski | June 24, 2011 | Reply

  2. CONTROVERSY sells and it seems Jane is mostly out to make bucks. And of late she has been seen on several MSNBC shows in one day to help her with “sales”. For some, the way to get rich is to become a megachurch, televangelist OR increasingly it seems, have a successful BLOG. Fantasy pays in either case.

    Is it me or has MSNBC, since being bought out by COMCAST, been moving towards the right? Their pundits know who is now issuing their paychecks. Both Comcast chief Brian Roberts and NBCU chief Steve Burke have donated to both parties, but in the case of Democratic giving, mostly to the more conservative like Blanche Lincoln.

    Roberts donated only to Hillary Clinton in 2008 so now wonder fellow Hillary supporter Jane Hamsher is so welcome on MSNBC. I cannot find that either ever gave a dime to Barack Obama.

    http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/brian-roberts.asp?cycle=08

    In 2010, seemingly only gave money to Republicans:
    http://www.campaignmoney.com/advanced.asp?searchtype=contributors&cycle1=10&lname=Burke&fname=Steve&work=Comcast&occup=&zipcodes=&fdate=&tdate=&state=PA&cycle2=10&cmtetype=&cmtename=&cmteorg=&igc=&cmteparty=&cycle3=10&cndoffice=&cndtype=&cndlname=&cndfname=&cndstate=&cndparty=&orderby=

    Roberts seems to be an equal opportunity donor giving to both parties and has in the past been a supporter of Joe Lieberman, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Shumer, Arlen Specter, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Blanche Lincoln, etc. In 2004, they donated to BOTH Bush/Cheney and John Kerry.

    http://www.campaignmoney.com/advanced.asp?pg=3&searchtype=contributors&cycle1=04&lname=Roberts&fname=Brian&work=Comcast&occup=&zipcodes=&fdate=&tdate=&state=PA&cycle2=10&cmtetype=&cmtename=&cmteorg=&igc=&cmteparty=&cycle3=10&cndoffice=&cndtype=&cndlname=&cndfname=&cndstate=&cndparty=&orderby=&reccnt=24&recamt=67000

    Comment by grantinhouston | June 24, 2011 | Reply

  3. THERE IS A NEW ADDITION TO THE URBAN DICTIONARY:

    “GONE HAMSHER”

    To twist facts and reality in order to blame President Obama for all the wrongs in the world…whether the wrong is actual, perceived, or imaginary. Just like Jane Hamsher does.

    “Wait…Kevin dropped his ice cream, and he’s blaming Obama?” “Yeah, he’s Gone Hamsher

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hamsher

    Comment by Ladyhawke | June 24, 2011 | Reply

    • Awesome, I’m sharing it on twitter. Did you do that?

      Comment by Extreme Liberal | June 24, 2011 | Reply

      • No, EL, I can’t take credit for that very cleaver (and accurate) new addition to the urban dictionary. I was poking around on the internet and some commenter mentioned the new urban dictionary meaning for gone hamsher. When I saw your post, I thought it was a perfect time to bring it to your attention. The urban dictionary definition for ‘gone hamsher’ was submitted by VDAZE.

        Comment by Ladyhawke | June 25, 2011 | Reply

    • Does this lead to “going Postal”? ;^)

      Comment by grantinhouston | June 24, 2011 | Reply

    • Nice one Ladyhawke. I have to remember that. Gone Hamsher.

      Comment by Dorothy Rissman | June 24, 2011 | Reply

  4. I agree with you. ~ Kaolin, author of “Talking About Race: A Workbook About White People Fostering Racial Equality in their Lives” published by Crandall, Dostie and Douglass Books, Inc.

    Comment by Kaolin | June 24, 2011 | Reply

  5. Jane Hamsher sounds like a bitch. Who would even follow this republican disguised as a democrat?

    Comment by Jeff | June 24, 2011 | Reply

  6. Sometimes get upset with Rachel Maddow, too, the uber lesbian who can sound like Johnny One-Note when it comes to gay issues. I am not really sure where she stands on Obama and wonder if she is one who secretly hopes for a primary challenger to the President. Tonight she was ecstatic while reporting New York passing its gay marriage bill emphasizing that the Republican majority now in the New York Senate were the ones most responsible for passing it. The she HAD TO ADD they did something which President Obama opposed last night in his speech before a NYC GLBT group. However, Rachel is not correct as Obama said marriage is a function of STATE law and the STATE of New York just exercised their right to regulate marriage. She repeated several times that the last time the bill was before the state senate, DEMOCRATS held the majority and voted it down, but now the majority Republicans are now heroes to the GLBT community. However, public opinion has reversed the past few years and of course politicians most often follow such polling which can trump ideology. You do have to hand it to those Republicans who did vote “yes” as the Tea Party says they will target those who voted for gay marriage.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/24/nyregion/obama-speech-interrupted-by-gay-marriage-supporters.html

    Comment by grantinhouston | June 24, 2011 | Reply

    • I am still steamed over that. Rachel has been acting like a brat. This one goes over the line for me. I have sent an email to her and the head of corporate media to let them know I will not be watching her show any more.

      It is funny because it started with the Weiner mess and she has been on a tirade which usually means she is after PBO for weeks now. On this issue, she reached too far.

      Comment by Dorothy Rissman | June 25, 2011 | Reply

      • Maddow’s “OPINION” slamming President Obama for not being 100% pro-gay marriage should have had nothing to do with the Breaking Story at hand last night. She had to scornfully add, “President Obama is against what just happened.” NO, Rachel, he has always been for the STATES to make their marriage law and New York just did make a change!!! Marriage is still a state-by-state issue.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/24/maddow-on-gay-marriage-new-york-obama_n_884444.html

        A year ago when David Axelrod said, “The president does oppose same-sex marriage but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples in benefits and other issues.”

        Maddow, after showing the Axedrod clip, mused on her show,

        “Got that? So the line from the administration is that Barack Obama does not want gay people to be allowed to be married, but when gay people can be married and other people are trying to take away that right like in California, he doesn’t want the right to be taken away. But, he’s not in favor of that right in the first place. You got it? The president is against gay marriage but he is also against constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage, which means that he’d apparently prefer [in Maddow's opinion] that gay marriage be banned through flimsier tactical means? That’s the president’s position. Clear as mud. Ripe for criticism much?”

        http://www.shewired.com/g-spot/rachel-maddow-obamas-tortured-logic-over-gay-marriage-video

        Obama may not be on record as advocating gay marriage, but neither has he actively opposed it. Instead of riding hard on Obama, Rachel should instead compare him with the Bush administration (even Bill Clinton who gave us DADT and DOMA) and the current crop of GOP wannabes. She doesn’t seem to appreciate what he has done!

        I give kudos to the FOUR New York Republicans who did vote for the bill but remember that 29 or the 30 Democrats in the 62 seat New York Senate first submitted the bill and were main the reason (along with DEMOCRATIC Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s support) that it passed. I feel Rachel gave too much credit to the few moderate Republicans who did what they should have done.

        Just like Bachmann and Gingrich are now trying to make blacks and Hispanics feel slighted (in order to get them to stay at home next year…aka voter suppression), I have also wondered if Maddow and others of the “professional left” aren’t trying to do the same with the gay community with her many snide remarks and her promotion of flame throwers like Dan Choi. I was out of the closet BEFORE Maddow and Choi were even born and have seen a tidal change in improved conditions for the gay community. Not that we don’t have a ways to go, yet, but there has been progress year-after-year. But then I am not from a generation that wants it all and wants it RIGHT NOW!

        As a convert to the Democratic Party at age 27, I have always been upset with Democrats who loudly proclaim their objections in public in such tones/words that can be used against our party by the opposition in the next election. Talk about waving dirty laundry! Republicans were still playing nice with each other in last week’s “debate” as they take Ronald Raygun’s “11th Commandment” to heart.

        Comment by grantinhouston | June 25, 2011 | Reply

  7. Jane is working with Grover Norquist. Her media company, CommonSense Media Advertising Network (www.csmAds.com), get a lot of $$$ from the Republican Party. Norquist and the Wall Streeters want to get their hands on Social Security war chest. She has no conscious what so ever.

    Comment by Crystal | June 25, 2011 | Reply

    • Grover Norquist, whose group was to sponsor the third Republican “debate” in mid July in Las Vegas, has postponed the event now to be held instead after Gov. Rick Perry’s August 6 big prayer rally in Houston’s Reliant Stadium. Perry has said he won’t make up his mind until after that event evidently not wanting people to believe he is pandering to the religious REICH. Today’s Houston Chronicle says that Perry’s wife, who as a registered nurse claims to be most upset with Obamacare, is encouraging her husband to run (hopefully making her FIRST LADY?!). Conservative columnist George Will has just come out encouraging a Perry run. (I see that Will is continuing to spout the Perry LIE that he created 37% of the nation’s jobs last year!)

      http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/7626878.html

      Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman had not planned on entering the Norquist “debate” next month. Some are encouraging a Romney-Perry ticket since there was a Boston-Austin connection between JFK and LBJ in 1960 that brought together the Democratic left-right factions then. Also, LBJ helped to ease the minds of those fearing a Roman Catholic president and Gov. Perry’s evangelical beliefs could help ease those who fear Romney’s Mormonism.

      Comment by grantinhouston | June 26, 2011 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 156 other followers

%d bloggers like this: