Sunday, April 12, 2009

'Epic Fail,' Starring Jane Hamsher

(BUMPED; UPDATES BELOW) Yet another brilliant move, Jane:

UPDATE: by Smitty (h/t: Insty)
FoxNews, while not funding the protests, does offer some tips to avoid Hamsher's rattiness.

UPDATE II: Little Miss Attila mocks the madness of Crazy Jane who -- need we remind you? -- last week was whining that Democrats aren't forking over to pay off their blogbots. A bit of the old "jobs for the boys" mentality over on the Left side of the 'sphere, and then Crazy Jane projects her madness on the Right by accusing Fox of fomenting the Tea Party movement.

Crazy Jane should be grateful she's not like the workers at SEIU's Washington HQ who got laid off after their union spent $85 million in members' dues to elect Obama.

UPDATE III: Via Memeorandum, more commentary at TrogloPundit, Instapundit, Hot Air, Founding Bloggers, Blue Crab Boulevard, Gay Patriot, PoliGazette., and Dan Riehl.

Meanwhile, Crazy Jane continues to insist there is PROOF that Rupert Murdoch plotted the Tea Party movement. Right. And fire can't melt steel.

UPDATE IV: Reply to Steve Benen, et al., Or: How to Respond to a "Progressive" (If You Must).

UPDATE V: Linked at Capital Research Center.


  1. Ugh, I have been reading about this broad making an ass of herself for the last four days. Just how stupid is she gonna get is the next question?

  2. I'm guessing this vid is not going to help Hamsher's welfare/blog ad $ extortion efforts, right?

  3. She's an idiot, but check Steve Benen's post at WaMonthly for your next update...

  4. Um, what's that phrase...? "Jane, you ignoble slob." Something like that.

  5. I posted about this last night what struck me is that Hamsher implicitly admitted that Dems are stealing from the taxpayer.

  6. 1. I don't think Hamsher is "crazy"; a better shortcut might be to choose one from here.

    2. Fox is indeed funding the parties in a way. How much do you think it would cost to buy ads on Fox encouraging people to come out to the parties? Fox isn't just covering them, they're encouraging turnout.

    3. More worrisome than Fox are the others behind the parties, which includes those who support massive immigration.

    4. These parties will have no impact whatsoever because the vast majority of Americans reject objectivism, and that's the only underlying ideology the parties have offered so far. The parties aren't about things that millions of Americans would support. The underlying message is one of complete selfishness. When millions of Americans are out of work and we're in a recession, whining about taxes because you're greedy is not going to get much support. On the plus side, that will help discredit people who push such an ideology.

    5. Smart/non-Randroid people who want to oppose BHO and the Dems in an effective, intelligent manner should do this instead.

  7. The vast majority of Americans don't "reject objectivism," because the vast majority of Americans don't know what objectivism is.

    Nevertheless, what you're implying, Lonewacko, is that human minds are static -- as if everything is frozen in time, and that's Just The Way It Is.

    Let's grant that "millions of Americans" don't support the "underlying message." So how might their support be procured? How might they be swayed? How might their minds be changed?

    By never disseminating the message?


    Here's the deal: America's founding was based on the ideas implicit in the tea parties. Thus there was a time when the "vast majority of Americans" embraced these concepts. They got dissuaded out of them starting about 100 years ago -- why can't they be persuaded back into them now?

    Individual liberty is individual liberty. It is right, it is good, and it is what the American experiment was supposed to be about. If the "vast majority of Americans" need to be reminded of that -- reminded that America was conceived to be different from everything else -- than that's what needs to happen. And the tea parties are as good a place as any to start.

  8. Oh, and:

    Why would it matter if the tea parties were being run by Fox News Channel?

    What would that have to do with anything?

  9. "In-kind" contributions are only regulated when given to campaigns over election issues. Tea parties are not campaigning for nor against any ballot initiatives or candidates. Fox is not "funding" these parties in any way more than the NYT and other media have "funded" BO's election campaign, so it takes some real mental gymnastics to stoke outrage about the former while conveniently ignoring/forgiving the latter.

    Let's say it's true, and Fox is generously donating its resources to the protestors who wouldn't have enough resources on their own to make a dent in media's ideological blinders... So What?

    We're paranoid about "them" who are "behind" it all? I'm sorry, but anyone attending one of these is speaking for themselves if Hitler gave $5 to the Boy Scouts, would we accuse anyone who showed up at a campfire of "speaking for Hitler?" Plus, it's just not true. Take a look at the 15k rally in Glendale CA. Who organized it? Want to try to tell me that John + Ken are pro- "massive immigration?"

    The vast majority of the American public doesn't even know what Objectivism IS let alone "reject it." The latest poll shows 39% of respondants planning to attend a tea party, and that's of all political persuasions. This doesn't even include the number who aren't attending, but support them just the same (you know, people with jobs). This doesn't sound like overwhelming rejection to me.

    The number of universities that even mention Ayn Rand in their philisophy curricula can be counted on one hand. But even so, you are wrong to conflate Objectivism with Minarchism, of which is what these tea parties are truly demonstrative. Minarchism is a political ideology, Objectivism is a philosophy which, while including minarchism, also includes a rejection of organized religion and the morality of need based charity. These issues won't even be MENTIONED at tea parties.

    This is not an either-or, and you present no good reason why people shouldn't do both. Other than some conspiratorial nonsense about "them" who are "behind" it all and that "they" really want something diametrically opposed to ALL of the attendees. If collecting a good salary is the result of people trying to financially ruin me, well gosh I hope they keep ruining me just like this.

    Oh, and dehumanizing Objectivists (people who worship thinking above all else) as non-thinkers shows nothing more than a lack of thought on your own part. We can disagree with them in many respects as to their moral code etc, but you wouldn't like it much if I just dismissed every statement you made as a function of ideologically programmed robotic ignorant stupidity would you?