Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

The bizarre strategy of Firedoglake

DCblogger's picture

Saturday, December 5, just as Heathcare-NOW! and others were calling on their supporters to push for Bernie Sander's single payer amendment, just as the Pennsylvania single payer movement was gearing up for their big hearing before their Senate Banking Committee, readers of FireDogLake were asked to support a very long shot Democratic Candidate for the US Senate. Failure to pony up was instantly interpreted as lack of commitment on the part of single payer advocates.

More recently FDL Action has been sponsoring a petition against Bernie Sanders, of all people.

NTodd is underwhelmed.

Well Jane, what is the grand strategy? How is going after the Senate's only socialist going to get us closer to single payer? How is backing a NY long shot going to get us closer to single payer?

And most of all, how is the continued newsblack out on news about Pennsylvania and other state single payer movements goint to get us closer to single payer?

What is the strategy? What is the plan?

0
No votes yet

Comments

Corner Stone's picture
Submitted by Corner Stone on

Thanks for posting that link. It's very instructional to remember all the blanket support to HCAN that Jane provided, all while snubbing SP.
It's also pretty awesome to see her decrying the "attacks" against MoveOn at that time, and see where she is today.
She's been so wrong for so long. Words can't express it really.

Submitted by Anne on

nor is her categorical refusal to ever admit she made, or is making, any mistakes. I used to comment there back in the Ned Lamont days, but it was almost impossible to offer an opposing view, or question Hamsher, without being piled on by the Jane-worshippers.

And then she started to build the FDL empire, of which she is the undisputed Queen - and no one questions the queen.

If Jane is helping, what is it that she's helping - the cause of health care reform, or the cause of FDL? Are they so intertwined that it is impossible for even Jane to know, is she choosing strategy to keep and build her blog base, which I think is the easy way out, or is she formulating a strategy and LEADING more and more people to it? Is her strategy to get the attention of the mainstream - that worked so well for Ezra - and thrill the FDL community with her ability to be a big player?

I just do not trust her. She seemed to start form a position of, "oh, no - we can't get behind single-payer - that's a lost cause," and - just like Obama did - had to do her best to keep it even out of the conversation. And then, one morning we all woke up to find that Jane is someone who was "always" a strong supporter of single-payer - and she even knows the people at PNHP. So there.

Would a strong supporter of single payer decide to refund a contribution to Jonathan Tasini because it came from someone who wasn't toeing the Hamsher-approved line? Would it help the single payer effort to rip anyone in comments who wanted some clarification on her out-of-the-blue support of single-payer? Was banning lambert a territorial move, and if so, how does that help the SP effort?

I don't see the rhyme or reason in any of it, if what I'm looking at is the issue of health care reform; but if I'm looking at a business strategy to build the FDL brand, it makes more sense; she's not using her blog to advance health care reform, she's using health care reform to advance her blog.

I'm not saying she doesn't care about health care, nor am I saying she doesn't care what happens on this issue, but I am saying that she needs to focus more on the reforms that make the most sense, and let the blog-consequences fall where they may.

S Brennan's picture
Submitted by S Brennan on

So much of what you say is spot on. I also like the way you linked Ezra to the scene of the crime...but of course I have more bloggers in mind, but let us not forget the betrayal by the A-listed [Blog-go-sphere] that drove us into this wreck.

A special shout out to this.

"but it was almost impossible to offer an opposing view, or question [blogger name here], without being piled on by the [blogger name here]-worshipers."

Corner Stone's picture
Submitted by Corner Stone on

She seemed to start form a position of, "oh, no - we can't get behind single-payer - that's a lost cause," and - just like Obama did - had to do her best to keep it even out of the conversation. And then, one morning we all woke up to find that Jane is someone who was "always" a strong supporter of single-payer

She castigated anyone who tried to discuss SP with the "whar's the votes?" rhetoric which is similar to what she's doing to anyone who asks about the crusade against Rahm. "How do you defend his XYZ?"
Just brutal.

Thanks for your comment here.

DavidByron's picture
Submitted by DavidByron on

I think she can be counted on to do the right thing after exhausting all other alternatives.

okanogen's picture
Submitted by okanogen on

Quoted in full:

I understand that a certain Jane has achieved epistolary parity with the Great Norquist. It must be one of those off-off-cycle things. Last off-off it was Ned Lamont, this off-off its Grover, the Bather of Cities. Starting with NOLA.

What a ... gift.

I look forward to Gibblets' or the Medium Lobster's write up. At least Jack Abramoff worked for his clients.

How awkward for art, to be less weird than life. I think we've reached the wrap-around-point, where "radicals" become reactionaries, or new media hogs aiming for nothing but this month's high status cites and the attendant traffic.

Those who write for, link to, or read "Firedoglake" are passing through the looking glass.