Kevin Koster commented on Don’t Expect Chris Wallace To Correct Any Donald Trump Falsehoods At The Presidential Debate
2016-09-06 03:08:02 -0400
· Flag
How about the fact that Bush’s AG had to resign in total disgrace, where Eric Holder continued to do his job in spite of dozens of GOP attempts to drive him from office? And the fact that the Bush Admin was mired in very real illegality and scandal, but the GOP has desperately spent the past 8 years trying to generate anything they could to smear the Obama group?
If anything, I would fault the Obama Admin for being too naïve to understand that these people really did want to obliterate them. The Clinton people won’t be taken in so easily.
If anything, I would fault the Obama Admin for being too naïve to understand that these people really did want to obliterate them. The Clinton people won’t be taken in so easily.
Kevin Koster commented on Fox News’ Chris Wallace To Moderate Presidential Debate But No Latinos Will
2016-09-04 13:20:07 -0400
· Flag
Dave, that’s not quite accurate. The best we could have hoped for would be to not have the debate commission use anyone from Fox News. Including Chris Wallace lends them legitimacy. True, Wallace may sink that idea by doing what people here are concerned about. But the real point is that Fox News is not a legitimate news channel, and mainstream outlets ignore that distinction at their peril.
Kevin Koster commented on Newt Gingrich Thinks Trump Could Have HUUGE Appeal To ‘The Blacks’
2016-09-03 16:01:37 -0400
· Flag
Newt is setting himself up for a repeat of the 2012 election, wherein he and others confidently predicted a Romney landslide. If this election goes the way it really feels it will go, I can’t imagine how he saves face this time.
Kevin Koster commented on 10 Takeaways From Andrea Tantaros’ Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Against Fox News
2016-08-26 19:52:02 -0400
· Flag
John, I think that would be “I Am Not A Lawyer”
Kevin Koster commented on Watch Megyn Kelly Try To Liken Breitbart.com To Media Matters
2016-08-26 15:27:15 -0400
· Flag
This was obviously a sleazy attempt by Kelly at a false equivalence between Media Matters and Andrew Breitbart’s hate site.
Let’s be upfront and honest about Media Matters before getting into the rest of the discussion. Media Matters was created by David Brock, who had previously run a series of right wing smear jobs, the most notorious of which was his campaign against Anita Hill for having the temerity to publicly speak about the behavior of Clarence Thomas when she had to work for him. Brock did an about face in the latter 90s and dedicated himself to liberal causes, the biggest one being Media Matters. (I note that there was an existing Media Matters idea already running before Brock’s organization – a radio show hosted by Robert McChesney about media issues and bias) It could easily be argued that Brock’s advocacy for Democrats has been equally as blind as his prior smearing for the GOP. But I note that the Media Matters work has really stayed on course as a direct challenge to what the right wing is actually saying – much as this site works. Brock castigates the right wing for their dishonesty and hypocrisy, but he doesn’t smear the right. To me, he’s still the same operative he was as a young man, but he’s learned to stop it with the mud. I don’t know that I’d completely trust him – there’s only so much one can believe he would change.
On the other hand, Brock’s Media Matters is not an open hate-speech organization like what we’ve seen at Breitbart.
Let’s be upfront and honest about Andrew Breitbart. He was emphatically NOT a “great man.” He was an angry, mean-spirited, vicious man who enriched himself by attacking liberals for sport. He pioneered the idea of aggressive personal attacks through the internet as a kind of political bloodsport. He reveled in the publication of misleading and deceptively edited videos as a way to smear those with whom he disagreed. He brought us the still-running saga of James O’Keefe, and the misery that has come from there. He destroyed the careers of various decent people, including Shirley Sherrod, who reportedly won a massive settlement from Breitbart’s estate after his death in 2012. His is a legacy of negativity. He left the world an angrier and nastier place than he found it. We continue to deal with the fallout of his antics, including the continuing existence of what’s left of the Breitbart media empire. Some of his unpleasant acolytes have now spread out across the media and political landscape, such as Ben Shapiro, and it is important that we continue to remember where these guys come from. Like Breitbart, those who have gone on the ride with him and participated in this negativity frankly have no moral ground on which to stand, and no credibility as writers or political thinkers. They are, like Breitbart, simply bullies, and they should be responded to as such.
Kelly’s false equivalence here is telling. She tried the same approach in her mildly contentious interview with Jorge Ramos during the same broadcast. Ramos of course has had the temerity to point out that journalists who don’t speak out about Trump’s constant hate-baiting and race-baiting will need to answer for that in the future. And he’s clearly referencing the great statement of Martin Niemoller about how people in Nazi Germany didn’t speak up when the Nazis came for the Jewish community, the trade unionists, the communists, etc. But Kelly couldn’t see that. In a strikingly blind comment, Kelly actually tried to pose herself as a completely unbiased journalist. She even tried to shame Ramos by saying “since a majority of people think that Hillary Clinton is a liar and dishonest, would it be fair by your thinking for every host to start any discussion of her with the comment, ‘Well, many people think she’s a liar’?” Which is hysterical on its face, since pretty much every anchor on Fox News does exactly that every time they discuss Clinton. (And that’s without getting into Kelly trying to “gotcha” Ramos with a comment about how his daughter works for the Clinton campaign. Something that Ramos pointed out he’s been very open about, disclosing it frequently and even when he conducted a fairly contentious questioning of Clinton this year.)
Let’s be upfront and honest about Media Matters before getting into the rest of the discussion. Media Matters was created by David Brock, who had previously run a series of right wing smear jobs, the most notorious of which was his campaign against Anita Hill for having the temerity to publicly speak about the behavior of Clarence Thomas when she had to work for him. Brock did an about face in the latter 90s and dedicated himself to liberal causes, the biggest one being Media Matters. (I note that there was an existing Media Matters idea already running before Brock’s organization – a radio show hosted by Robert McChesney about media issues and bias) It could easily be argued that Brock’s advocacy for Democrats has been equally as blind as his prior smearing for the GOP. But I note that the Media Matters work has really stayed on course as a direct challenge to what the right wing is actually saying – much as this site works. Brock castigates the right wing for their dishonesty and hypocrisy, but he doesn’t smear the right. To me, he’s still the same operative he was as a young man, but he’s learned to stop it with the mud. I don’t know that I’d completely trust him – there’s only so much one can believe he would change.
On the other hand, Brock’s Media Matters is not an open hate-speech organization like what we’ve seen at Breitbart.
Let’s be upfront and honest about Andrew Breitbart. He was emphatically NOT a “great man.” He was an angry, mean-spirited, vicious man who enriched himself by attacking liberals for sport. He pioneered the idea of aggressive personal attacks through the internet as a kind of political bloodsport. He reveled in the publication of misleading and deceptively edited videos as a way to smear those with whom he disagreed. He brought us the still-running saga of James O’Keefe, and the misery that has come from there. He destroyed the careers of various decent people, including Shirley Sherrod, who reportedly won a massive settlement from Breitbart’s estate after his death in 2012. His is a legacy of negativity. He left the world an angrier and nastier place than he found it. We continue to deal with the fallout of his antics, including the continuing existence of what’s left of the Breitbart media empire. Some of his unpleasant acolytes have now spread out across the media and political landscape, such as Ben Shapiro, and it is important that we continue to remember where these guys come from. Like Breitbart, those who have gone on the ride with him and participated in this negativity frankly have no moral ground on which to stand, and no credibility as writers or political thinkers. They are, like Breitbart, simply bullies, and they should be responded to as such.
Kelly’s false equivalence here is telling. She tried the same approach in her mildly contentious interview with Jorge Ramos during the same broadcast. Ramos of course has had the temerity to point out that journalists who don’t speak out about Trump’s constant hate-baiting and race-baiting will need to answer for that in the future. And he’s clearly referencing the great statement of Martin Niemoller about how people in Nazi Germany didn’t speak up when the Nazis came for the Jewish community, the trade unionists, the communists, etc. But Kelly couldn’t see that. In a strikingly blind comment, Kelly actually tried to pose herself as a completely unbiased journalist. She even tried to shame Ramos by saying “since a majority of people think that Hillary Clinton is a liar and dishonest, would it be fair by your thinking for every host to start any discussion of her with the comment, ‘Well, many people think she’s a liar’?” Which is hysterical on its face, since pretty much every anchor on Fox News does exactly that every time they discuss Clinton. (And that’s without getting into Kelly trying to “gotcha” Ramos with a comment about how his daughter works for the Clinton campaign. Something that Ramos pointed out he’s been very open about, disclosing it frequently and even when he conducted a fairly contentious questioning of Clinton this year.)
Kevin Koster commented on Here's Andrea Tantaros' Full Complaint Against Fox And Senior Executives
2016-08-23 15:27:21 -0400
· Flag
Holy Toledo.
From the smoldering wreckage of all the bridges Tantaros just burned, I can’t see any situation wherein Fox News doesn’t go after her with everything they have.
She didn’t just put in materials about Shine and Ailes. There’s some really nasty comments by Ailes about nearly everyone else on “The Five”. And there’s allegations of improper conduct that get very specific not just about O’Reilly but also Scott Brown and John Roberts. O’Reilly’s are the allegations that get really creepy, to be honest.
One has to wonder where Tantaros thinks she’s going to work after this. She’s been exceptionally nasty to liberals as I still recall from her 2013 exhortation where she told her listeners to punch Obama supporters in the face. She has repeatedly purveyed lies and smears during her time at Fox News. Who the heck would want to hire her after a record like this?
It’s terrible to read how she was treated by men and women at Fox News, but that doesn’t change how she treated other people.
From the smoldering wreckage of all the bridges Tantaros just burned, I can’t see any situation wherein Fox News doesn’t go after her with everything they have.
She didn’t just put in materials about Shine and Ailes. There’s some really nasty comments by Ailes about nearly everyone else on “The Five”. And there’s allegations of improper conduct that get very specific not just about O’Reilly but also Scott Brown and John Roberts. O’Reilly’s are the allegations that get really creepy, to be honest.
One has to wonder where Tantaros thinks she’s going to work after this. She’s been exceptionally nasty to liberals as I still recall from her 2013 exhortation where she told her listeners to punch Obama supporters in the face. She has repeatedly purveyed lies and smears during her time at Fox News. Who the heck would want to hire her after a record like this?
It’s terrible to read how she was treated by men and women at Fox News, but that doesn’t change how she treated other people.
Kevin Koster commented on Has Roger Ailes Become A Key Strategist For The Donald Trump Campaign?
2016-08-20 14:40:45 -0400
· Flag
Don’t underestimate Roger Ailes’ ability to toss out distractions and viciousness during a campaign. Remember his activities during the 1984 Reagan campaign and the 1988 George HW Bush campaign – particularly the Willie Horton ad. Ellen is correct that he’ll take this campaign even farther into the mud than they’ve already descended.
And don’t underestimate Ailes’ continuing influence on Fox News, particularly with Bill Shine being at the top of the pyramid. My instincts say that Shine and Ailes are coordinating as closely as they can – with Ailes not “officially” working for the Trump campaign but in fact actually doing so. This would explain the increasingly connected messaging of the Trump campaign and Fox News’ coverage. And of course, Fox News will continue to cover every Trump rally they can as though it was newsworthy.
I note in the gutterball territory that Jesse Watters sneered out another debunked cheap shot at Hillary Clinton last night – in which he “just” threw in the notion that Hillary Clinton had stolen 200K of silverware from the White House when she and Bill Clinton left there in 2001. Anyone actually having followed this whack-a-mole story would know that this is not actually what happened, and that if we are to compare departing presidents and their gifts that they take with them, Ronald and Nancy Reagan would dwarf everyone with the millions of dollars of materials they took.
I also note that for some reason, Sean Hannity is now repeatedly setting up “Town Halls” for Trump to appear presidential while Hannity arranges an approving group of right wing talking heads and angry white Trump supporters to buoy him up. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a situation where a “news network” would go all-in like this for a candidate. It’s pretty blatant.
Of course, at the same time, there are several voices at the network that aren’t drinking this Kool-Aid. I’ll be very curious to see how the fallout looks in November and December. I have a strong feeling that some people will not be staying at Fox News afterwards.
And don’t underestimate Ailes’ continuing influence on Fox News, particularly with Bill Shine being at the top of the pyramid. My instincts say that Shine and Ailes are coordinating as closely as they can – with Ailes not “officially” working for the Trump campaign but in fact actually doing so. This would explain the increasingly connected messaging of the Trump campaign and Fox News’ coverage. And of course, Fox News will continue to cover every Trump rally they can as though it was newsworthy.
I note in the gutterball territory that Jesse Watters sneered out another debunked cheap shot at Hillary Clinton last night – in which he “just” threw in the notion that Hillary Clinton had stolen 200K of silverware from the White House when she and Bill Clinton left there in 2001. Anyone actually having followed this whack-a-mole story would know that this is not actually what happened, and that if we are to compare departing presidents and their gifts that they take with them, Ronald and Nancy Reagan would dwarf everyone with the millions of dollars of materials they took.
I also note that for some reason, Sean Hannity is now repeatedly setting up “Town Halls” for Trump to appear presidential while Hannity arranges an approving group of right wing talking heads and angry white Trump supporters to buoy him up. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a situation where a “news network” would go all-in like this for a candidate. It’s pretty blatant.
Of course, at the same time, there are several voices at the network that aren’t drinking this Kool-Aid. I’ll be very curious to see how the fallout looks in November and December. I have a strong feeling that some people will not be staying at Fox News afterwards.
Kevin Koster commented on Fox’s Dana Perino Slaps Down Trump’s ‘Rigged Polls’ Claim
2016-08-19 03:39:19 -0400
· Flag
I agree that Perino is acting as the adult in the room while many others at Fox News are blindly stumping for Trump. (see Hannity, Sean; etc)
But for me, the most important quote here is her straightforward admission: “I don’t want the Republicans to lose. I believe that conservative values and the principles and our policies are so much better than liberal ones.”
This from a person who is featured on multiple Fox News shows, running the gamut from opinion to supposed news analysis. She is openly stating her bias – something Fox News has repeatedly denied over the two decades it has existed. When pushed, Fox News points to the notion that it’s got plenty of liberal voices, etc. Dana Perino is one of the more moderate voices to be found on the network. She’s not a Hannity or an O’Reilly. She doesn’t get into shouting matches with people, and she doesn’t get gleeful or falsely pious. She’s one of their rational faces, and she’s just stated that she’s openly Republican and will work to make sure that a Republican is elected. It’s not a surprised and it’s already evident, but to hear the words come out of her mouth that blatantly tells a lot about how much the wheels are coming off the wagons in that organization.
But for me, the most important quote here is her straightforward admission: “I don’t want the Republicans to lose. I believe that conservative values and the principles and our policies are so much better than liberal ones.”
This from a person who is featured on multiple Fox News shows, running the gamut from opinion to supposed news analysis. She is openly stating her bias – something Fox News has repeatedly denied over the two decades it has existed. When pushed, Fox News points to the notion that it’s got plenty of liberal voices, etc. Dana Perino is one of the more moderate voices to be found on the network. She’s not a Hannity or an O’Reilly. She doesn’t get into shouting matches with people, and she doesn’t get gleeful or falsely pious. She’s one of their rational faces, and she’s just stated that she’s openly Republican and will work to make sure that a Republican is elected. It’s not a surprised and it’s already evident, but to hear the words come out of her mouth that blatantly tells a lot about how much the wheels are coming off the wagons in that organization.
Kevin Koster commented on Fox & Friends Distort Dr. Drew Pinsky To Revive Phony Hillary Clinton Health Rumor
2016-08-18 19:42:52 -0400
· Flag
This entire line of discussion is flat-out sick. I agree that Fox News is again showing its desperation and panic over a candidate we’ve all known to be extremely deficient.
I agree with David that it’s a truly strange day when Newt Gingrich is the only one in the room making sense.
I agree with David that it’s a truly strange day when Newt Gingrich is the only one in the room making sense.
Kevin Koster commented on Roger Ailes Now Officially Advising Donald Trump
2016-08-17 21:07:27 -0400
· Flag
Trump’s campaign appears to be in freefall at the moment. He’s now tripling down on the angry rhetoric and securing the help of Ailes and the guy running Breitbart’s smears.
It’s still possible that he could pull out of this crash dive, but that will require him to suddenly become a master of debating. If he doesn’t, the debates will effectively attach the cement overshoes to his downward momentum.
It’s still possible that he could pull out of this crash dive, but that will require him to suddenly become a master of debating. If he doesn’t, the debates will effectively attach the cement overshoes to his downward momentum.
Kevin Koster commented on Thin-Skinned Hannity Can’t Stop Whining About ‘Pipsqueak’ Brian Stelter
2016-08-17 21:02:59 -0400
· Flag
Hannity is beginning to openly panic about Trump’s plummeting poll numbers. Between that disaster and the uncertainty he faces at Fox News without Ailes to protect him, it’s not a surprise to see him lashing out in all directions.
I suppose it wouldn’t be appropriate to use the Limbaugh phrase and note that Stelter appears to be living rent-free in Hannity’s head.
I suppose it wouldn’t be appropriate to use the Limbaugh phrase and note that Stelter appears to be living rent-free in Hannity’s head.
Kevin Koster commented on Fox Host Payne Helps Sen. Jeff Sessions Mislead About Trump’s Poor Poll Numbers
2016-08-14 00:29:17 -0400
· Flag
Paul’s contribution is interesting but sadly uninformed.
I don’t know that Trump and his supporters are personally responsible for CNN’s ratings, but it’s interesting that Paul would like to think they are. It’s a little troubling that Paul would like for Trump to take credit for trying to pollute someone else’s social postings on Twitter or anywhere else, but that’s for Paul to explain.
Very interesting that Paul thinks that Trump leads somehow in “all independent online polls”. What the heck does this mean? The aggregate of all polls clearly shows Trump slipping farther and farther behind. What specific polls are showing him as leading? I strongly doubt that Paul can produce anything here, but I’d be curious to see what he is talking about.
Finally, Paul’s comments about free speech are moving, but he’s got the discussion upside down and backwards. Forgetting that he’s lumping Progressives and Liberals into a single designation, I’ll just deal with his misunderstanding of radicals and free speech. Progressives have long been proponents of free speech, particularly when they were told to shut up about their opposition to war and cruelty, or when they were told that voicing a different opinion was somehow treason during the disastrous George W. Bush presidency.
But progressives have also long spoken out against Hate Speech, which is not the same thing as simply voicing an opinion. It’s a matter of advocating hatred and violence against someone else, something that Trump and his supporters have repeatedly done. Paul apparently doesn’t like being called out for this, but he has a simple solution he can exercise: Don’t say hateful and racist things, and he won’t be called out for saying them. He does have the right to say those hateful things, but everyone else has the right to call him on it when he does so.
I don’t know that Trump and his supporters are personally responsible for CNN’s ratings, but it’s interesting that Paul would like to think they are. It’s a little troubling that Paul would like for Trump to take credit for trying to pollute someone else’s social postings on Twitter or anywhere else, but that’s for Paul to explain.
Very interesting that Paul thinks that Trump leads somehow in “all independent online polls”. What the heck does this mean? The aggregate of all polls clearly shows Trump slipping farther and farther behind. What specific polls are showing him as leading? I strongly doubt that Paul can produce anything here, but I’d be curious to see what he is talking about.
Finally, Paul’s comments about free speech are moving, but he’s got the discussion upside down and backwards. Forgetting that he’s lumping Progressives and Liberals into a single designation, I’ll just deal with his misunderstanding of radicals and free speech. Progressives have long been proponents of free speech, particularly when they were told to shut up about their opposition to war and cruelty, or when they were told that voicing a different opinion was somehow treason during the disastrous George W. Bush presidency.
But progressives have also long spoken out against Hate Speech, which is not the same thing as simply voicing an opinion. It’s a matter of advocating hatred and violence against someone else, something that Trump and his supporters have repeatedly done. Paul apparently doesn’t like being called out for this, but he has a simple solution he can exercise: Don’t say hateful and racist things, and he won’t be called out for saying them. He does have the right to say those hateful things, but everyone else has the right to call him on it when he does so.
Kevin Koster commented on Fox Tries To Blame Trump’s Terrible Poll Numbers On The Media
2016-08-13 13:57:14 -0400
· Flag
When none of this stuff works, what else do they come up with? An ancient debunked canard about Clinton’s defense counsel days from 1975 which gets nowhere other than the same gullible people who believed it last time. (And this is why these games really start to feel like Whack-a-Mole after a while) A startling revelation that Cheryl Mills volunteered to interview some people for the Clinton Foundation Charity, including travelling on her own dime to do so. (All of which is legal and actually commendable) And some attempted hay that the FBI is looking at the conduct of the Clinton Foundation, which turns out to be based on the urging of right wing GOP congresspeople and advocates. Oh, and a nonsensical series of digs about Clinton’s supposed health problems. (Which is also interesting – is she this dynamic terror on wheels, or is she a frail old woman who can’t stand on her own two feet? I’m not sure that the right wing knows which meme to play here…) On the last, Eric Bolling actually tried to get Trump to make a salacious comment during one of Trump’s several interviews with Fox News this week alone, and for a change, Trump decided not to bite. Yet.
So what we have is Fox News and the right wing frantically trying to wave their arms and yell “Booga, Booga, Booga!!!” during a time when their chosen candidate is literally melting down in front of them. (And he’s even commenting on taking a vacation if he loses) Now, what’s a right wing ideologue like Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh to do? Their candidate is saying all the outrageous things they’d love to say, throwing all the verbal insults and bombs they’d love to get away with, and including several that these guys have actually thrown around. But the American public isn’t responding with adoration. Instead, the public is revolted. I wonder why…
So what we have is Fox News and the right wing frantically trying to wave their arms and yell “Booga, Booga, Booga!!!” during a time when their chosen candidate is literally melting down in front of them. (And he’s even commenting on taking a vacation if he loses) Now, what’s a right wing ideologue like Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh to do? Their candidate is saying all the outrageous things they’d love to say, throwing all the verbal insults and bombs they’d love to get away with, and including several that these guys have actually thrown around. But the American public isn’t responding with adoration. Instead, the public is revolted. I wonder why…
Kevin Koster commented on Fox Regular: Hillary Clinton Put Orlando Shooter’s Father Behind Her ‘To Appeal To The Islamic Vote’
2016-08-11 00:24:12 -0400
· Flag
This was clearly supposed to be the Fox News/right wing Line of the Week. The intention was to really point this up and work it to emphasize Clinton as clueless or sinister, depending on which prejudice the viewer is supposed to have. And it was supposed to tie in with the other two attack lines of the week. The first being the Judicial Watch Attempted Email Headline #294, where we are supposed to believe that a right wing activist group has “suddenly” come across really sinister emails that turn out to be both ordinary and already dealt with. The second being the new lawsuit from two right wing parents of Benghazi victims. A lawsuit that just happens to have been timed to be unveiled about one week after the Dem Convention with the clear goal of puncturing any bounce Clinton might have been getting.
All three of those stories together were intended to be a constant whine of negativity about Clinton to drive her numbers down and discourage her supporters. (“Your candidate is about to be indicted again! Your candidate is an evil person who is being sued by the poor parents of her victims! Your candidate doesn’t even care about the victims in Orlando!”) And this was supposed to be the drumbeat of the week, hopefully to result in some strong downturns in her polling and thus some improvement for Trump to keep him close until the debates. This was also intended to keep her trustworthy numbers as low as possible and alienate Clinton from anyone thinking of her as a human being after the last couple of weeks.
And it all could have worked brilliantly. If Trump could have controlled himself and stayed on his message. If he could have resisted the impulse to go for the cheap below-the-belt shot. But he can’t. He simply can’t stop himself from the cheap shot.
So now all of right wing media has been stuck having to address and cover for Trump’s vicious joke. Which blows a hole through the great week they had planned for Clinton. These great Rovian ideas only work when your candidate isn’t determined to shoot himself in the big toe at least once a week.
All three of those stories together were intended to be a constant whine of negativity about Clinton to drive her numbers down and discourage her supporters. (“Your candidate is about to be indicted again! Your candidate is an evil person who is being sued by the poor parents of her victims! Your candidate doesn’t even care about the victims in Orlando!”) And this was supposed to be the drumbeat of the week, hopefully to result in some strong downturns in her polling and thus some improvement for Trump to keep him close until the debates. This was also intended to keep her trustworthy numbers as low as possible and alienate Clinton from anyone thinking of her as a human being after the last couple of weeks.
And it all could have worked brilliantly. If Trump could have controlled himself and stayed on his message. If he could have resisted the impulse to go for the cheap below-the-belt shot. But he can’t. He simply can’t stop himself from the cheap shot.
So now all of right wing media has been stuck having to address and cover for Trump’s vicious joke. Which blows a hole through the great week they had planned for Clinton. These great Rovian ideas only work when your candidate isn’t determined to shoot himself in the big toe at least once a week.
Kevin Koster commented on Fox News Talent Have Reportedly Worked As Smear Merchants For Roger Ailes
2016-08-07 22:43:43 -0400
· Flag
If what Sherman is talking about is properly investigated, this is very serious business indeed. I submit a single name in case anyone thinks this is something that would just get swept under the rug: John McTiernan. Once he was a major Hollywood director of big action movies. And then the whole Pellicano case happened, and his conduct during that investigation landed him in prison for nearly a year.
Anyone who participated in these smear campaigns should be very concerned about following in McTiernan’s footsteps.
Anyone who participated in these smear campaigns should be very concerned about following in McTiernan’s footsteps.
Kevin Koster commented on GOP Civil War! ‘Dumbest Anchor’ Sean Hannity Vs. ‘Dumbass’ WSJ Editor Bret Stephens
2016-08-07 22:35:57 -0400
· Flag
Hannity’s desperation is really starting to show now. There’s nothing going on at Fox News or in this campaign that he remotely likes. He wanted to see Ted Cruz get the nomination and he wanted to see Newt Gingrich get the VP slot. Instead, he’s forced to defend Trump on nonsensical grounds and he is stuck with a VP nominee he didn’t want. Add to that the continuing mayhem inside Fox News, where his greatest protector is now gone. Hannity has to know that he may be the most vulnerable prime time host they have, and he won’t have anywhere to turn once he loses his position at Fox News.
And there’s an added injustice for Hannity: Rush Limbaugh is apparently being retained for another 4 years by Clear Channel. Hannity was thinking Limbaugh would be retiring soon, thus giving Hannity the potential number one position for right wing radio shouters. Instead, Limbaugh will continue limping along (and continue losing radio stations and markets) for another few years, and Hannity will continue to stand by, hoping he can somehow inherit Limbaugh’s mantle in the end.
The fact that the polling has continued to slide badly for Trump hasn’t been lost on Hannity. Between the Ailes ouster and the potential four years of Hillary Clinton in the White House, he has to be wondering where he’ll be standing in another year. My thinking is that he tries to hang on as long as he can, particularly given that he really doesn’t have any standing after he leaves Fox News.
And there’s an added injustice for Hannity: Rush Limbaugh is apparently being retained for another 4 years by Clear Channel. Hannity was thinking Limbaugh would be retiring soon, thus giving Hannity the potential number one position for right wing radio shouters. Instead, Limbaugh will continue limping along (and continue losing radio stations and markets) for another few years, and Hannity will continue to stand by, hoping he can somehow inherit Limbaugh’s mantle in the end.
The fact that the polling has continued to slide badly for Trump hasn’t been lost on Hannity. Between the Ailes ouster and the potential four years of Hillary Clinton in the White House, he has to be wondering where he’ll be standing in another year. My thinking is that he tries to hang on as long as he can, particularly given that he really doesn’t have any standing after he leaves Fox News.
Kevin Koster commented on Eric Bolling Berates A GOP Congressman Refusing To Support Donald Trump
2016-08-07 22:28:10 -0400
· Flag
This was an interesting segment, in that it clearly showed panic setting in for Bolling. The best part was his demand that Dent admit to somehow violating the “Buckley Rule” of always voting for the more conservative candidate.
Dent was clearly taken aback by the level of aggression and panic emanating from Bolling, and it looked like he was struggling to answer at times while he recovered from his amazement.
If anything, it was interesting to hear Bolling act as though he had the right to tell someone else what their political priorities should be. Dent and others have clearly made up their minds that Donald Trump is not a candidate they can support. They don’t like him on principle, and they don’t trust him to be able to handle the job of President. Bolling doesn’t get to tell them that they are not allowed to have that reaction.
And yes, here goes Bolling again with his Supreme Court argument – what he’s leaving out is that there should NOT be a 4-4 split on the Court right now. There is a perfectly qualified appointee named Merrick Garland, who is waiting for the hearings that should have been conducted 5 months ago. Hearings that Bolling’s friends in the Senate have refused to conduct, in the hope that they can somehow game the system long enough for a Trump to get into office and nominate a real far right wing hard case. The fact that the GOP thinks they can get away with that last insult is something that I really hope comes into play in the fall campaign. I’d love to see those guys trying to justify their pettiness to the voters.
Dent was clearly taken aback by the level of aggression and panic emanating from Bolling, and it looked like he was struggling to answer at times while he recovered from his amazement.
If anything, it was interesting to hear Bolling act as though he had the right to tell someone else what their political priorities should be. Dent and others have clearly made up their minds that Donald Trump is not a candidate they can support. They don’t like him on principle, and they don’t trust him to be able to handle the job of President. Bolling doesn’t get to tell them that they are not allowed to have that reaction.
And yes, here goes Bolling again with his Supreme Court argument – what he’s leaving out is that there should NOT be a 4-4 split on the Court right now. There is a perfectly qualified appointee named Merrick Garland, who is waiting for the hearings that should have been conducted 5 months ago. Hearings that Bolling’s friends in the Senate have refused to conduct, in the hope that they can somehow game the system long enough for a Trump to get into office and nominate a real far right wing hard case. The fact that the GOP thinks they can get away with that last insult is something that I really hope comes into play in the fall campaign. I’d love to see those guys trying to justify their pettiness to the voters.
Kevin Koster commented on Scott Baio Wants Someone To Ask Chelsea Clinton, ‘How Do You Feel That Your Dad Was Accused Of Rape?’
2016-07-30 16:12:00 -0400
· Flag
Far right-wingers actually do believe that Bill Clinton committed rape. They believe this because they’ve been told that for years by sources like Rush Limbaugh. They also believe the Clintons are guilty of fraud, larceny, mob tactics and murder. It doesn’t matter that none of this is true. It doesn’t matter than this stuff has been repeatedly debunked and discredited. All that matters is that they believe it, because they genuinely hate the Clintons and they’d believe anything anyone said that presented them in a sinister light. And as we’ve noted, if Limbaugh repeats a lie fifty times over 20 years, it doesn’t matter that we repeatedly point out that it’s a lie. The sheer repetition begins to give the lie the weight of truth. Since these guys already believe this nonsense anyway, the repetition makes them think that it’s some kind of confirmation.
Take the story that Hillary Clinton was fired from the legal staff of the House Oversight Committee on Watergate, investigating the malfeasances of the Nixon Administration. This is a right-wing trope we’ve heard for years, and it’s based on contradictory claims made by Jerry Zeifman, who was the Chief Counsel. The problem is that Zeifman’s statements not only contradict themselves but have been debunked by other people on the same committee. They note that Zeifman did not fire Clinton, that she didn’t do anything along the lines of the criminality he has alleged, and that even if he’d wanted to fire her, he couldn’t have done so. Further, it’s noted that Zeifman has stated issues with pretty much everyone else he worked with on that committee and people being asked about his reliability tend to say that he doesn’t have it. (Basically, his book and accounts of what happened add up to sour grapes by him more than anything else.) But this story gets repeated ad nauseum by right wingers all over the place, as recently as yesterday by Rush Limbaugh. And in the last few months, we’re even starting to see left wing supporters of Bernie Sanders citing this as an example of her supposed untrustworthiness, etc.
And that’s the problem – the lies get to the point that even left-wingers think they’re true. Which points to the importance of a site like this – to keep calling them out on this stuff. I swear that it’s like playing “Whack-a-Mole”, but if we don’t keep doing it, these lies will continue to be resurrected.
Take the story that Hillary Clinton was fired from the legal staff of the House Oversight Committee on Watergate, investigating the malfeasances of the Nixon Administration. This is a right-wing trope we’ve heard for years, and it’s based on contradictory claims made by Jerry Zeifman, who was the Chief Counsel. The problem is that Zeifman’s statements not only contradict themselves but have been debunked by other people on the same committee. They note that Zeifman did not fire Clinton, that she didn’t do anything along the lines of the criminality he has alleged, and that even if he’d wanted to fire her, he couldn’t have done so. Further, it’s noted that Zeifman has stated issues with pretty much everyone else he worked with on that committee and people being asked about his reliability tend to say that he doesn’t have it. (Basically, his book and accounts of what happened add up to sour grapes by him more than anything else.) But this story gets repeated ad nauseum by right wingers all over the place, as recently as yesterday by Rush Limbaugh. And in the last few months, we’re even starting to see left wing supporters of Bernie Sanders citing this as an example of her supposed untrustworthiness, etc.
And that’s the problem – the lies get to the point that even left-wingers think they’re true. Which points to the importance of a site like this – to keep calling them out on this stuff. I swear that it’s like playing “Whack-a-Mole”, but if we don’t keep doing it, these lies will continue to be resurrected.
Kevin Koster commented on On Fox, Priebus Falsely Accuses Clinton Of Being ‘Illegitimate’ Nominee
2016-07-25 21:06:49 -0400
· Flag
For better or for worse, Hillary Clinton won the Democratic nomination by winning a lot more votes than Bernie Sanders. The votes were not rigged, and neither were the voters. Clinton simply got more people to vote for her. For Priebus to make the smarmy accusation that she’s somehow “illegitimate” is so offensive that it doesn’t even merit the laugh test.
One can argue that some of the comments in the leaked emails aren’t friendly to Sanders. Some of the comments are themselves offensive. But there’s nothing to indicate that the DNC sanctioned nastiness or impropriety. If anything, various emails show DNC staffers scolding people who were making inappropriate comments.
Having read a series of what were considered the “Most Damaging” emails, what see is not a concerted effort to “rig the system” against Sanders but rather a frustration with his supporters’ repeated attempts to disrupt primary events and caucuses. Schultz’s angriest statements came after the awful behavior by Sanders supporters in Nevada when they threw things and made threats after a parliamentary gambit of theirs failed. Granted, the DNC must remain neutral (and in many emails, the staffers say exactly that), but there’s nothing inherently wrong in politicians knowing the way the polling reads for the remaining states after April.
At this point, Fox News and the right wing are doing everything they can to blow this stuff way out of proportion, since they’re hoping they can make it sound stranger than the dark circus they inflicted last week in Cleveland.
One can argue that some of the comments in the leaked emails aren’t friendly to Sanders. Some of the comments are themselves offensive. But there’s nothing to indicate that the DNC sanctioned nastiness or impropriety. If anything, various emails show DNC staffers scolding people who were making inappropriate comments.
Having read a series of what were considered the “Most Damaging” emails, what see is not a concerted effort to “rig the system” against Sanders but rather a frustration with his supporters’ repeated attempts to disrupt primary events and caucuses. Schultz’s angriest statements came after the awful behavior by Sanders supporters in Nevada when they threw things and made threats after a parliamentary gambit of theirs failed. Granted, the DNC must remain neutral (and in many emails, the staffers say exactly that), but there’s nothing inherently wrong in politicians knowing the way the polling reads for the remaining states after April.
At this point, Fox News and the right wing are doing everything they can to blow this stuff way out of proportion, since they’re hoping they can make it sound stranger than the dark circus they inflicted last week in Cleveland.
Kevin Koster commented on Donald Trump Suggests Roger Ailes Is The Victim Of Ungrateful Women, Won’t Say If Ailes Has Been An Advisor
2016-07-25 11:07:57 -0400
· Flag
I believe the “convention fight” narrative will be quelled by Sanders’ prime-time speech. By Wednesday, I believe the story will wind up being the differences seen between the Trump convention and the Dems gathering in Philadelphia. Past Sanders, there will be addresses by President Obama and Tim Kaine, as well, I think, as Bill Clinton.
Even on Fox News last night, even Brit Hume admitted that this latest email story isn’t much of one. Bill O’Reilly is of course trying to fan its flames, but he has no credibility on such matters in any case. I expect that Limbaugh and Hannity will also try to blow it up, but they’re expected to do so.
The long term of this campaign suggests that Trump will continue to embarrass himself in public, and that Clinton will maintain her slow but steady approach.
I’m actually curious about the attention Michael Moore is trying to get for himself now. He was a big Sanders supporter and is now trying to sell his story about how he thinks Trump is going to win the election. But at the end of his op-ed, he says “in my next column, I’ll talk about how we can prevent it”. In other interviews, he’s said he thinks Clinton will need to use satire to fight Trump. My instincts say that Moore just wants to see an outrageous campaign year – even farther over the top than what we’ve already been seeing. I agree with him that people need to pay attention and not assume anything. But Trump is by no means guaranteed to win this election. Moore’s assumption is that a lot of Clinton’s voters stay home. If people get the word out, that won’t be the case.
Even on Fox News last night, even Brit Hume admitted that this latest email story isn’t much of one. Bill O’Reilly is of course trying to fan its flames, but he has no credibility on such matters in any case. I expect that Limbaugh and Hannity will also try to blow it up, but they’re expected to do so.
The long term of this campaign suggests that Trump will continue to embarrass himself in public, and that Clinton will maintain her slow but steady approach.
I’m actually curious about the attention Michael Moore is trying to get for himself now. He was a big Sanders supporter and is now trying to sell his story about how he thinks Trump is going to win the election. But at the end of his op-ed, he says “in my next column, I’ll talk about how we can prevent it”. In other interviews, he’s said he thinks Clinton will need to use satire to fight Trump. My instincts say that Moore just wants to see an outrageous campaign year – even farther over the top than what we’ve already been seeing. I agree with him that people need to pay attention and not assume anything. But Trump is by no means guaranteed to win this election. Moore’s assumption is that a lot of Clinton’s voters stay home. If people get the word out, that won’t be the case.