Kevin Koster commented on Marco Rubio Just Can't Stop Acting Like A Robot
2016-02-11 00:08:10 -0500
· Flag
This is Exhibit #172 on the list of reasons why Rubio will not become President. Christie was right about the canned answers – and about the fact that Rubio is keeping himself insulated from having to actually deal with real human beings while he campaigns. I have a feeling Rubio will stay in for another few primaries/caucuses but he may find himself coming up very short and bowing out by Super Tuesday.
Christie surprised me today by surrendering immediately – I had expected him to stick around a little longer. Instead, he admitted failure right away and took the humiliation of watching Rubio continue to smirk at him while he went home with his tail between his legs. Not shocked to see Carly Fiorina similarly announce her failure to challenge Hillary Clinton.
Ben Carson surprised me, but it appears his ego is a little bigger than Christie’s. (Also, Christie likely wants to have a political future outside of this race) Not sure who the “millions of people” Carson thinks are going to magically appear for him in South Carolina or anywhere else. His refusal to accept failure now only means that it will be even more costly and humiliating for him in 2-3 weeks when he’s forced to do so. He can get out of the race now with his debts at the current level, or he can retreat around Super Tuesday when he’s in way over his head. Not a particularly smart move – but it makes sense given the ego involved here. (And there’s one other GOP candidate still out there who should have dropped out 6 months ago, but one can only surmise he’s not putting any money into his campaign. The good part for Gilmore is that when he does bow out, he won’t have to worry about getting a media spotlight on the failure – not even Fox News is giving him any attention.)
Christie surprised me today by surrendering immediately – I had expected him to stick around a little longer. Instead, he admitted failure right away and took the humiliation of watching Rubio continue to smirk at him while he went home with his tail between his legs. Not shocked to see Carly Fiorina similarly announce her failure to challenge Hillary Clinton.
Ben Carson surprised me, but it appears his ego is a little bigger than Christie’s. (Also, Christie likely wants to have a political future outside of this race) Not sure who the “millions of people” Carson thinks are going to magically appear for him in South Carolina or anywhere else. His refusal to accept failure now only means that it will be even more costly and humiliating for him in 2-3 weeks when he’s forced to do so. He can get out of the race now with his debts at the current level, or he can retreat around Super Tuesday when he’s in way over his head. Not a particularly smart move – but it makes sense given the ego involved here. (And there’s one other GOP candidate still out there who should have dropped out 6 months ago, but one can only surmise he’s not putting any money into his campaign. The good part for Gilmore is that when he does bow out, he won’t have to worry about getting a media spotlight on the failure – not even Fox News is giving him any attention.)
Kevin Koster commented on New Hampshire Primary - Open Thread
2016-02-10 13:34:24 -0500
· Flag
Cruz will never be president. I was hoping to see Bush get past him too. But this does show what we all knew about Rubio – that he would quickly fade.
Eyes is correct that Fox News is desperately trying to push Sanders, even to the point of trying nonsense that Clinton is “in serious trouble”. Riiiight. She won Iowa, and will win the next several primaries/caucuses plus Super Tuesday. What will they say then? That she had a huge comeback? Or that everyone knew she would win those races? We’ve known for two months that Sanders would easily win New Hampshire. Clinton knew too – that’s why she conceded early and moved on to the next race, where she will easily move past Sanders.
Fox News is simply enjoying a moment to flail at Clinton – this is the moment they wanted in Iowa and were denied. They should enjoy it while they can (and they’ll have a week to talk about how horrible she’s doing before she wins the Nevada caucuses and the South Carolina primary. Then they’ll bury the story instead and try to emphasize what delegates Bernie ekes out of those states. After Super Tuesday, it’s over for Bernie.
On the other hand, it looks like Chris Christie is admitting his failure today. As said before, Fiorina, Carson and Gilmore will also be out this week if they have any sense. After Super Tuesday, the GOP race should be down to 3 candidates at most. I don’t expect Rubio to make it past that point. I’m also watching to see if Cruz implodes by then – the fact that he was using Nixonian dirty tricks to take Iowa will not help him in a multi-state extravaganza.
Eyes is correct that Fox News is desperately trying to push Sanders, even to the point of trying nonsense that Clinton is “in serious trouble”. Riiiight. She won Iowa, and will win the next several primaries/caucuses plus Super Tuesday. What will they say then? That she had a huge comeback? Or that everyone knew she would win those races? We’ve known for two months that Sanders would easily win New Hampshire. Clinton knew too – that’s why she conceded early and moved on to the next race, where she will easily move past Sanders.
Fox News is simply enjoying a moment to flail at Clinton – this is the moment they wanted in Iowa and were denied. They should enjoy it while they can (and they’ll have a week to talk about how horrible she’s doing before she wins the Nevada caucuses and the South Carolina primary. Then they’ll bury the story instead and try to emphasize what delegates Bernie ekes out of those states. After Super Tuesday, it’s over for Bernie.
On the other hand, it looks like Chris Christie is admitting his failure today. As said before, Fiorina, Carson and Gilmore will also be out this week if they have any sense. After Super Tuesday, the GOP race should be down to 3 candidates at most. I don’t expect Rubio to make it past that point. I’m also watching to see if Cruz implodes by then – the fact that he was using Nixonian dirty tricks to take Iowa will not help him in a multi-state extravaganza.
Kevin Koster commented on Is Fox Starting To Make Marco Rubio Their Man For President?
2016-02-03 02:26:17 -0500
· Flag
This is likely not far off. Fox News has been waiting for a more stable candidate to emerge from the pileup of hopefuls who have stubbornly refused to leave the field up to now. On the other hand, I remember that they’ve also regularly celebrated any GOP candidate who had any traction at the moment. I watched them fawn over multiple candidates in 2012, only to drop them a week later when the polls changed.
The real indicator for me of Fox News’ current perspective has been the frequency of desperate flails at the Hillary Clinton campaign. It’s fairly obvious that they were hoping to see Bernie Sanders win Iowa, so that they could post a triumphant headline about it. Instead, she won the state. So they initially buried the coverage, then refused to acknowledge that she had won, and then tried the tack of saying that even though she’d won, she’d somehow really lost. My favorite part of this was them quoting Rance Priebus saying that her win in Iowa was “a total disaster”. I’m still trying to figure out how winning the first state in the nomination race is somehow a “disaster”…
The real indicator for me of Fox News’ current perspective has been the frequency of desperate flails at the Hillary Clinton campaign. It’s fairly obvious that they were hoping to see Bernie Sanders win Iowa, so that they could post a triumphant headline about it. Instead, she won the state. So they initially buried the coverage, then refused to acknowledge that she had won, and then tried the tack of saying that even though she’d won, she’d somehow really lost. My favorite part of this was them quoting Rance Priebus saying that her win in Iowa was “a total disaster”. I’m still trying to figure out how winning the first state in the nomination race is somehow a “disaster”…
Kevin Koster commented on Fox Hosts Cheer Criminal Charges For Mizzou Professor Who Threatened Videographer, Ignore Threats From Fox’s Tantaros
2016-02-01 16:36:14 -0500
· Flag
I don’t know anyone who thinks that assault should be condoned, other than right wing friends of mine who have repeatedly told me that Trayvon Martin deserved to be shot to death. But that’s neither here nor there when it comes to this situation. For this situation, we’ve already established that anyone who made physical contact with either of the two provocateurs should not have done so. As I noted before, it was appropriate for the professor to apologize and plead guilty to the misdemeanor charges.
What we see on the video is a situation where Tim Tai was repeatedly told to respect the space of the people who were in the protest area. One of the students practically begged him to respect their space “in the name of humanity”. Tai refused, and in fact escalated the situation by screaming and shouting that he would not leave or move. Other journalists have pointed out that Tai had a right to stand there, but showed very poor judgment in deliberately escalating the situation, as he clearly did. Schierbecker then took advantage of the situation to get into the tent area and provoke the professor, which he was happy to get on video.
Again, the proper course of action for both women who have been pilloried here would have been to calmly remind the two provocateurs that what they were doing was their right, but that they were disrespecting their fellow students in a fairly outrageous manner by their behavior. Not by wanting to document the protest – by refusing to abide by the wishes of the peaceful people who were there. We should remember that the Greek Life Director wouldn’t have been involved had Tai simply respected what he’d been asked by the other students. When he got belligerent and began screaming and yelling, the Director clearly thought she needed to look out for them.
I’m not sure that there was much of a valid story here, particularly in the way it was covered. You could have a discussion about the situation – noting the bad behavior by everyone and noting that nobody handled this particularly well. But the tone of OUTRAGE we’ve heard from right wing media frankly reads as false to anyone who knows anything about the past fifty years of history. Outrage is something I’d apply to the killing of the students at Kent State, to the repression of students expressing their rights in Berkeley in the 60s. In this case, we’re talking about something that was avoidable by all parties and was sadly escalated by two students who decided to make themselves the story.
So yes, this whole rabbit hole is a sideshow. And not a particularly interesting one – just another attempt by the right wing to falsely claim that college campuses are full of “left wing indoctrination” or “coddled liberal arts majors”.
I’d agree that problems were outed in this video – including poor judgment by some emotional people who reacted badly in a crisis. But this wasn’t an “institutional problem” by any means. The institutional problem continues to be the racism that provoked these protests in the first place, and which still has yet to fully be answered or corrected.
What we see on the video is a situation where Tim Tai was repeatedly told to respect the space of the people who were in the protest area. One of the students practically begged him to respect their space “in the name of humanity”. Tai refused, and in fact escalated the situation by screaming and shouting that he would not leave or move. Other journalists have pointed out that Tai had a right to stand there, but showed very poor judgment in deliberately escalating the situation, as he clearly did. Schierbecker then took advantage of the situation to get into the tent area and provoke the professor, which he was happy to get on video.
Again, the proper course of action for both women who have been pilloried here would have been to calmly remind the two provocateurs that what they were doing was their right, but that they were disrespecting their fellow students in a fairly outrageous manner by their behavior. Not by wanting to document the protest – by refusing to abide by the wishes of the peaceful people who were there. We should remember that the Greek Life Director wouldn’t have been involved had Tai simply respected what he’d been asked by the other students. When he got belligerent and began screaming and yelling, the Director clearly thought she needed to look out for them.
I’m not sure that there was much of a valid story here, particularly in the way it was covered. You could have a discussion about the situation – noting the bad behavior by everyone and noting that nobody handled this particularly well. But the tone of OUTRAGE we’ve heard from right wing media frankly reads as false to anyone who knows anything about the past fifty years of history. Outrage is something I’d apply to the killing of the students at Kent State, to the repression of students expressing their rights in Berkeley in the 60s. In this case, we’re talking about something that was avoidable by all parties and was sadly escalated by two students who decided to make themselves the story.
So yes, this whole rabbit hole is a sideshow. And not a particularly interesting one – just another attempt by the right wing to falsely claim that college campuses are full of “left wing indoctrination” or “coddled liberal arts majors”.
I’d agree that problems were outed in this video – including poor judgment by some emotional people who reacted badly in a crisis. But this wasn’t an “institutional problem” by any means. The institutional problem continues to be the racism that provoked these protests in the first place, and which still has yet to fully be answered or corrected.
Kevin Koster commented on Fox Looks Like It’s Begging Donald Trump To Take Part In Its Debate (And It’s Not Working)
2016-01-28 02:10:52 -0500
· Flag
Unless I’m mistaken, Fox’s PR statement came after Trump demanded they pull one of the moderators. So he’d already said he wasn’t going to show up anyway.
It’s been fascinating to watch people like Rush Limbaugh trying to defend Trump today. Saying things like “He’s not afraid! This is a control issue! He’s not going to put himself in a place where someone is going to try to make him look bad!”
Which of course means that Trump really IS afraid. He cannot appear in any situation that he doesn’t think he’ll be treated the way he wants. So how would he handle a situation where a foreign country has disrespected him, as he sees it? Boycott them? Call them losers? Throw their ambassadors out? Call French Fries Freedom Fries… oh. Okay, forget that last one, I got a little carried away…
Actually, Limbaugh’s statement that he regularly turns down TV interview requests is quite illuminating. While I strongly doubt that he is “constantly” getting such requests, I’ve always found it revealing that the only interviews he consents to are softball discussions from Greta at Fox News. He cannot tolerate anything stronger than someone complimenting him and telling him what a great guy he is. If I didn’t know better, I’d say that maybe Limbaugh is afraid of being interviewed by someone less obsequious, and he’s trying to justify that same trait in Trump.
It’s been fascinating to watch people like Rush Limbaugh trying to defend Trump today. Saying things like “He’s not afraid! This is a control issue! He’s not going to put himself in a place where someone is going to try to make him look bad!”
Which of course means that Trump really IS afraid. He cannot appear in any situation that he doesn’t think he’ll be treated the way he wants. So how would he handle a situation where a foreign country has disrespected him, as he sees it? Boycott them? Call them losers? Throw their ambassadors out? Call French Fries Freedom Fries… oh. Okay, forget that last one, I got a little carried away…
Actually, Limbaugh’s statement that he regularly turns down TV interview requests is quite illuminating. While I strongly doubt that he is “constantly” getting such requests, I’ve always found it revealing that the only interviews he consents to are softball discussions from Greta at Fox News. He cannot tolerate anything stronger than someone complimenting him and telling him what a great guy he is. If I didn’t know better, I’d say that maybe Limbaugh is afraid of being interviewed by someone less obsequious, and he’s trying to justify that same trait in Trump.
Kevin Koster commented on Andrea Tantaros Lies About Hillary Clinton "Jailing" Anti-Muslim Filmmaker
2016-01-23 14:50:20 -0500
· Flag
I’m getting the strong impression that Fox News is getting close to panic mode about the 2016 race. They clearly understand that Hillary Clinton is almost certain to be the Democrat nominee and that they don’t have a viable candidate to compete with her.
So we’ve had lie after lie about Benghazi, with every conceivable smear. Bill Clinton mentions that Hillary stood up to the heat of sitting in front of a hostile House committee for 11 hours, something that everyone acknowledged actually helped her campaign rather than what the GOP had hoped. Megyn Kelly responds by bringing on a relative of one of the guys killed at Benghazi, presumably to say that the only thing allowed to be discussed is how the men died. (Whereas if it had been a GOP candidate under pressure over, say, a poor response to people dying in Hurricane Katrina, Fox News would talk about how the candidate stood up to the pressure…)
And let’s not forget the actual facts about what happened when the “Innocence of Muslims” video was promulgated. There were deadly, bloody riots across the Middle East. Our embassy in Cairo was overrun by a mob that pulled down the American flag. Chaos rained for days in the area. And Fox News reveled in the chaos, trying to use the incident as a way to attack President Obama. Sean Hannity is preserved on video happily crowing, “Isn’t Obama supposed to be the expert on foreign policy? The Middle East is ON FIRE!” The Benghazi attack happened in the middle of that situation – the riots all over the area gave the terrorists cover to mount their own assault. Had it not been for the riots, the Benghazi attack would have been squelched without much fuss. But Fox News doesn’t want you to remember pesky details like that, do they?
And then we’ve had lie after lie about Hillary’s email server, a practice that was legal and in fact used by GOP cabinet members before her. (She simply used the privilege that was already enjoyed by Powell.) My favorite parts of that approach has been, up to this week, the drumbeat of “Will Hillary be, gasp, INDICTED?” as if such a thing was ever going to happen. No matter how many former W. people Fox News trots out to whisper sweet nothings about indictment, there is no indication that criminal prosecution is warranted or likely. And it’s fun to watch Fox News frantically comparing the email server to David Petraeus’ situation. Given that Clinton was keeping her server private and not sharing the information, and Petraeus was knowingly handing over classified intel to a woman with whom he was having an affair. Fox News wants its viewers to think that Petraeus’ willful dissemination of classified intel is a far lesser crime than Clinton having her own email server. Which is nonsensical on its face.
Of course, this week Fox News tried a new approach to the email fun. First, they really puffed over an IG interim report that just notes what kinds of documents were found in the server. Not whether those documents were given to outside parties or whether there is any evidence that such an event ever occurred. Not whether the documents were considered classified at the time they were sent, and not whether the documents were simply part of a repeated email chain that Clinton was being cc’d on. Not even whether many of these documents were actually the same document being sent back and forth in a single thread. Meaning that this interim report really doesn’t mean much – the only thing that would mean anything would be the Justice Dept coming out and saying they were finding problems. That hasn’t happened, and doesn’t appear likely to happen.
But just to make things a bit more interesting, Fox News then took the spin approach of saying that the emails could blow the cover of intelligence agents and endanger their lives. Megyn Kelly even took the time to interview intelligence people about exactly that notion. Which was a classic spit up your coffee moment of unintentional humor. Is Fox News seriously trying to say that they are now concerned about the welfare of undercover agents? Because they spent years trying to dismiss that exact issue when they were downplaying the dirty trick played on Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame (also known as “The Rove”) where her NOC status was blown open. Fox News and right wing radio delighted in saying that nothing wrong happened there, ignoring the fact that her life had been endangered and that all of her contacts’ lives were extremely endangered. (Fox News has never acknowledged that a bunch of these people were either killed or went into hiding as a direct result of the Plame leak.) (I should also acknowledge that left wing writers spoke in support of the Plame leak – but these were people who have always disliked the CIA in any case.)
So now Fox News wants us to believe they care, they really care, about the lives of undercover CIA agents. Something they said they DIDN’T care about when GOP guys were in the hot seat about it. Not only that, but the discussion about Wilson and Plame really did involve a deliberate leak and people’s lives being endangered. The current Fox News obsession with Hillary Clinton’s server is a theoretical one, assuming that maybe somebody could have hacked her server, if they even knew where it was or what it was. (And Fox News is even acknowledging that the same hackers regularly go after the official government servers without people jumping up and down about the security – because all that stuff is encrypted anyway.) So a real leak and political bomb from the W. years is to be ignored when Fox News says. But a theoretical discussion about a theoretical risk from a legal and approved procedure with an email server is to be fanned as much as possible – if it can help smear the likely Democrat nominee for President in 2016.
Based on the increasingly fervent tone being taken about Hillary Clinton at Fox News and right wing radio, one would have to conclude that they honestly don’t know how to debate her. All they’ve done up to now is throw mud and hope that some of it sticks. At the least, they’ve been able to stir up their own base who already hate her, and they’ve been able to confuse enough other people into thinking that she’s untrustworthy without quite knowing why.
Where this will get interesting is in the debates this fall. Let’s say the GOP actually is silly enough to nominate Donald Trump. How the heck can he get through a debate with Hillary Clinton with his usually vague and nasty answers? What does he do when he’s cornered? More personal attacks? That’s very presidential, isn’t it?
I believe what Fox News sees coming is a potential landslide going the other way from them – something that probably will give them better attack mode fodder for the next several years, but will mean that their political base would be rendered impotent during that time. Some of them probably would prefer this (it’s always easier to carp from outside than to actually govern), but I can’t imagine that Roger Ailes or Rupert Murdoch really wants to see a situation where the GOP loses that many House, Senate and state seats in a single election. Hence the panic. And we’re only in January. What will Fox News look like in September?
So we’ve had lie after lie about Benghazi, with every conceivable smear. Bill Clinton mentions that Hillary stood up to the heat of sitting in front of a hostile House committee for 11 hours, something that everyone acknowledged actually helped her campaign rather than what the GOP had hoped. Megyn Kelly responds by bringing on a relative of one of the guys killed at Benghazi, presumably to say that the only thing allowed to be discussed is how the men died. (Whereas if it had been a GOP candidate under pressure over, say, a poor response to people dying in Hurricane Katrina, Fox News would talk about how the candidate stood up to the pressure…)
And let’s not forget the actual facts about what happened when the “Innocence of Muslims” video was promulgated. There were deadly, bloody riots across the Middle East. Our embassy in Cairo was overrun by a mob that pulled down the American flag. Chaos rained for days in the area. And Fox News reveled in the chaos, trying to use the incident as a way to attack President Obama. Sean Hannity is preserved on video happily crowing, “Isn’t Obama supposed to be the expert on foreign policy? The Middle East is ON FIRE!” The Benghazi attack happened in the middle of that situation – the riots all over the area gave the terrorists cover to mount their own assault. Had it not been for the riots, the Benghazi attack would have been squelched without much fuss. But Fox News doesn’t want you to remember pesky details like that, do they?
And then we’ve had lie after lie about Hillary’s email server, a practice that was legal and in fact used by GOP cabinet members before her. (She simply used the privilege that was already enjoyed by Powell.) My favorite parts of that approach has been, up to this week, the drumbeat of “Will Hillary be, gasp, INDICTED?” as if such a thing was ever going to happen. No matter how many former W. people Fox News trots out to whisper sweet nothings about indictment, there is no indication that criminal prosecution is warranted or likely. And it’s fun to watch Fox News frantically comparing the email server to David Petraeus’ situation. Given that Clinton was keeping her server private and not sharing the information, and Petraeus was knowingly handing over classified intel to a woman with whom he was having an affair. Fox News wants its viewers to think that Petraeus’ willful dissemination of classified intel is a far lesser crime than Clinton having her own email server. Which is nonsensical on its face.
Of course, this week Fox News tried a new approach to the email fun. First, they really puffed over an IG interim report that just notes what kinds of documents were found in the server. Not whether those documents were given to outside parties or whether there is any evidence that such an event ever occurred. Not whether the documents were considered classified at the time they were sent, and not whether the documents were simply part of a repeated email chain that Clinton was being cc’d on. Not even whether many of these documents were actually the same document being sent back and forth in a single thread. Meaning that this interim report really doesn’t mean much – the only thing that would mean anything would be the Justice Dept coming out and saying they were finding problems. That hasn’t happened, and doesn’t appear likely to happen.
But just to make things a bit more interesting, Fox News then took the spin approach of saying that the emails could blow the cover of intelligence agents and endanger their lives. Megyn Kelly even took the time to interview intelligence people about exactly that notion. Which was a classic spit up your coffee moment of unintentional humor. Is Fox News seriously trying to say that they are now concerned about the welfare of undercover agents? Because they spent years trying to dismiss that exact issue when they were downplaying the dirty trick played on Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame (also known as “The Rove”) where her NOC status was blown open. Fox News and right wing radio delighted in saying that nothing wrong happened there, ignoring the fact that her life had been endangered and that all of her contacts’ lives were extremely endangered. (Fox News has never acknowledged that a bunch of these people were either killed or went into hiding as a direct result of the Plame leak.) (I should also acknowledge that left wing writers spoke in support of the Plame leak – but these were people who have always disliked the CIA in any case.)
So now Fox News wants us to believe they care, they really care, about the lives of undercover CIA agents. Something they said they DIDN’T care about when GOP guys were in the hot seat about it. Not only that, but the discussion about Wilson and Plame really did involve a deliberate leak and people’s lives being endangered. The current Fox News obsession with Hillary Clinton’s server is a theoretical one, assuming that maybe somebody could have hacked her server, if they even knew where it was or what it was. (And Fox News is even acknowledging that the same hackers regularly go after the official government servers without people jumping up and down about the security – because all that stuff is encrypted anyway.) So a real leak and political bomb from the W. years is to be ignored when Fox News says. But a theoretical discussion about a theoretical risk from a legal and approved procedure with an email server is to be fanned as much as possible – if it can help smear the likely Democrat nominee for President in 2016.
Based on the increasingly fervent tone being taken about Hillary Clinton at Fox News and right wing radio, one would have to conclude that they honestly don’t know how to debate her. All they’ve done up to now is throw mud and hope that some of it sticks. At the least, they’ve been able to stir up their own base who already hate her, and they’ve been able to confuse enough other people into thinking that she’s untrustworthy without quite knowing why.
Where this will get interesting is in the debates this fall. Let’s say the GOP actually is silly enough to nominate Donald Trump. How the heck can he get through a debate with Hillary Clinton with his usually vague and nasty answers? What does he do when he’s cornered? More personal attacks? That’s very presidential, isn’t it?
I believe what Fox News sees coming is a potential landslide going the other way from them – something that probably will give them better attack mode fodder for the next several years, but will mean that their political base would be rendered impotent during that time. Some of them probably would prefer this (it’s always easier to carp from outside than to actually govern), but I can’t imagine that Roger Ailes or Rupert Murdoch really wants to see a situation where the GOP loses that many House, Senate and state seats in a single election. Hence the panic. And we’re only in January. What will Fox News look like in September?
Kevin Koster commented on Fox’s Tantaros: “We don’t know if John Kerry is mentally alive or not”
2016-01-19 17:59:55 -0500
· Flag
I wonder how Fox News would have reacted if left wing journalists had said the same thing about Condoleeza Rice or Colin Powell during W’s terms.
I do remember criticism of their priorities, particularly of Rice being in the pocket of Big Oil, but not in terms of her basic intelligence.
This is simply another cheap shot from Tantaros and Fox News, and should be recognized as such.
I do remember criticism of their priorities, particularly of Rice being in the pocket of Big Oil, but not in terms of her basic intelligence.
This is simply another cheap shot from Tantaros and Fox News, and should be recognized as such.
Kevin Koster commented on Fox News Focus Group Member Complains, ‘You Can’t Even Speak The Truth Any More Or Else You’ll Be Called A Racist’
2016-01-18 23:24:22 -0500
· Flag
I have to thank Ellen for posting this. It gave me and several people at work today a really good laugh.
If right wing GOP people don’t want to be called out for racism, then perhaps they shouldn’t do or say racist things. It’s not that hard. Just don’t be a racist and people won’t think you to be one. I agree with Ellen – what “truth” is it that these people feel they can’t speak out loud? That they don’t like Muslims? That they don’t like immigrants? That they don’t like black people? That they hate this President and are willing to believe any and every lie they are told about him?
Back in the 1990s, there was a silly right wing meme that got floated, saying that America was suffering from “compassion fatigue” – that privileged white Americans felt that they shouldn’t have to address the country’s long history of racism and discrimination. Members of FAIR had a great response at the time – they answered that this was an interesting question but millions of Americans were continuing to suffer from “racism fatigue”.
If right wing GOP people don’t want to be called out for racism, then perhaps they shouldn’t do or say racist things. It’s not that hard. Just don’t be a racist and people won’t think you to be one. I agree with Ellen – what “truth” is it that these people feel they can’t speak out loud? That they don’t like Muslims? That they don’t like immigrants? That they don’t like black people? That they hate this President and are willing to believe any and every lie they are told about him?
Back in the 1990s, there was a silly right wing meme that got floated, saying that America was suffering from “compassion fatigue” – that privileged white Americans felt that they shouldn’t have to address the country’s long history of racism and discrimination. Members of FAIR had a great response at the time – they answered that this was an interesting question but millions of Americans were continuing to suffer from “racism fatigue”.
Kevin Koster commented on ‘Patriotic’ Hannity Too Upset Obama Didn’t Threaten To ‘Bomb The Living Crap’ Out Of Iran To Be Glad U.S. Sailors Released Unharmed
2016-01-14 00:35:25 -0500
· Flag
In his Fox show tonight, there were some truly stunning moments, even for Hannity. He felt a need to monologue about how much he hates this President, which he presented as his own “rebuttal” to the SOTU address.
Things got much stranger during a discussion with Laura Ingraham and Geraldo Rivera. Rivera actually made one good point in there – Hannity didn’t do a “rebuttal” to a George W. Bush SOTU ever. It was only when President Obama was delivering them that Hannity found it appropriate to tear them apart. Had anyone done that to W. Bush, Hannity would have accused them of treason.
Of course, Hannity does now seize on an economic number that really does mean something. He’s correct when he notes that the unemployment figures don’t include the many people who have been out of work too long to be counted within that statistic and/or have given up looking for a new job. Hannity is right to note that if you counted these people in the full unemployment number, the figure would rise sharply. But he’s forgetting that people on the left cited this number throughout the W. Bush presidency, when Hannity was trying to talk UP the economy rather than talk it down. Hannity wouldn’t hear of such discussion until Barack Obama became President. At that point, this number became very important to him.
Rivera asked when Hannity gave one of these kinds of rebuttals to George W. Bush, and Hannity tried to bully away the question. Ingraham then jumped in on Hannity’s side and tried to dismiss Rivera’s objection. And she made a statement that Hannity had roundly criticized Bush’s handling of the economy when things weren’t going so well. The only problem with her statement is that IT’S A LIE. As thankfully documented here, Sean Hannity actually went way overboard trying to deny there were any economic problems, all the way through the 2008 electoral cycle – even to the point of trying to bully Robert Kuttner off the air.
Things got much stranger during a discussion with Laura Ingraham and Geraldo Rivera. Rivera actually made one good point in there – Hannity didn’t do a “rebuttal” to a George W. Bush SOTU ever. It was only when President Obama was delivering them that Hannity found it appropriate to tear them apart. Had anyone done that to W. Bush, Hannity would have accused them of treason.
Of course, Hannity does now seize on an economic number that really does mean something. He’s correct when he notes that the unemployment figures don’t include the many people who have been out of work too long to be counted within that statistic and/or have given up looking for a new job. Hannity is right to note that if you counted these people in the full unemployment number, the figure would rise sharply. But he’s forgetting that people on the left cited this number throughout the W. Bush presidency, when Hannity was trying to talk UP the economy rather than talk it down. Hannity wouldn’t hear of such discussion until Barack Obama became President. At that point, this number became very important to him.
Rivera asked when Hannity gave one of these kinds of rebuttals to George W. Bush, and Hannity tried to bully away the question. Ingraham then jumped in on Hannity’s side and tried to dismiss Rivera’s objection. And she made a statement that Hannity had roundly criticized Bush’s handling of the economy when things weren’t going so well. The only problem with her statement is that IT’S A LIE. As thankfully documented here, Sean Hannity actually went way overboard trying to deny there were any economic problems, all the way through the 2008 electoral cycle – even to the point of trying to bully Robert Kuttner off the air.
Kevin Koster commented on Megyn Kelly Lets Ammon Bundy Ramble About His Extremist Anti-Government Views Without Challenge
2016-01-10 13:48:27 -0500
· Flag
The reason Kelly didn’t go full-nasty on Bundy is pretty obvious. Too many of Fox News’ viewers like the Bundy family and agree with their extreme ideas. If Kelly goes after Bundy, she alienates the GOP base and many of Roger Ailes’ coveted demographic.
On the other hand, Ailes doesn’t like that these yahoos are acting out during an election year, and I doubt he thinks they have a chance at anything other than jail terms. But he knows he can’t just attack them without consequences. (His likely position is that their behavior is inevitable given the current President, but that these guys are just making a mess.)
So he has Kelly try to go down the middle of the road. She doesn’t exactly agree with Bundy’s comments, but she doesn’t shout him off the air either. So the GOP fans of Bundy can say that he got his points in, and the GOP critics of Bundy can point to her correcting him here and there.
And yes, if this was a left-wing sit-in at a congressman’s office where the protestors were refusing to leave until, say, the congressman changed their vote on something like the Iraq invasion, Kelly would spare no ammunition in ridiculing and blasting at the protestor.
On the other hand, Ailes doesn’t like that these yahoos are acting out during an election year, and I doubt he thinks they have a chance at anything other than jail terms. But he knows he can’t just attack them without consequences. (His likely position is that their behavior is inevitable given the current President, but that these guys are just making a mess.)
So he has Kelly try to go down the middle of the road. She doesn’t exactly agree with Bundy’s comments, but she doesn’t shout him off the air either. So the GOP fans of Bundy can say that he got his points in, and the GOP critics of Bundy can point to her correcting him here and there.
And yes, if this was a left-wing sit-in at a congressman’s office where the protestors were refusing to leave until, say, the congressman changed their vote on something like the Iraq invasion, Kelly would spare no ammunition in ridiculing and blasting at the protestor.
Kevin Koster commented on Andrea Tantaros Suggests Planned Parenthood Doctors Kill More People Than Terrorists
2015-12-04 19:18:59 -0500
· Flag
Thank you for confirming that I wasn’t hearing things this morning. Truly unbelievable.
Kevin Koster commented on Fox News Feigns Concern For Black Crime To Deflect From Laquan McDonald Protests
2015-11-25 20:13:12 -0500
· Flag
It sounds like Mike James has not actually watched this segment or even read what the protestor was actually saying.
Frankly, it’s strange to hear someone thinking that anyone would say that violent crime is caused by people being afraid of calling the police. That’s a nonsensical statement, and it would seem to line up with the same strange worldview that would start ideas like “Black Lives Don’t Matter”.
Obviously, the protestor’s view is that there’s a problem when communities don’t feel safe calling the police. Meaning that they not only are victimized by crime but by the police as well. This really isn’t that hard to understand. But most likely Mike James already knows this.
Frankly, it’s strange to hear someone thinking that anyone would say that violent crime is caused by people being afraid of calling the police. That’s a nonsensical statement, and it would seem to line up with the same strange worldview that would start ideas like “Black Lives Don’t Matter”.
Obviously, the protestor’s view is that there’s a problem when communities don’t feel safe calling the police. Meaning that they not only are victimized by crime but by the police as well. This really isn’t that hard to understand. But most likely Mike James already knows this.
Kevin Koster commented on Fox News Sunday Interview With Rush Limbaugh Features His ‘Barack Hussein O And The Jihadi Singers’ Song
2015-11-22 21:29:59 -0500
· Flag
One wonders why Kevin Pearson is so angry that he feels he must throw profanity around. It sounds like desperation as he watches a pundit he clearly admires, Limbaugh, sinking into irrelevancy.
Pearson seems unaware of the facts. Limbaugh has in fact been losing radio stations. Here in Los Angeles, he was moved off the Clear Channel flagship, KFI and put on their secondary tier station, now renamed KEIB at the lower powered 1150AM broadcast. (This station only covers part of Los Angeles as opposed to KFI which can cover everywhere from Valencia down to Orange County) Limbaugh has also lost key stations in other cities. Only recently he was throwing a tantrum about not caring about having lost his WABC perch in New York, and that’s without noting that he’s been pulled off the air in other markets like Boston.
The market manager covering WIBC in Indianapolis publicly stated that they pulled Limbaugh off the air because several national sponsors will not consent to have their ads on during his program. (This is also most likely the reason why Clear Channel bumped Limbaugh to the lesser station in Los Angeles.)
There is no evidence that all the sponsors “begged” to be taken back by Limbaugh – other than Limbaugh’s people insisting that it happened. David Friend at Carbonite certainly didn’t. He was unapologetic about it months after the fact, even though right wingers tried to spin the situation the other way around. (Carbonite lost some revenue due to their principled choice to walk away from Limbaugh – that revenue drop, as Friend noted at the time, was due to their needing to find other national programming to replace Limbaugh, not due to Limbaugh being the key to their future.)
And let’s look at who’s been advertising on his shows since he attacked Fluke – Hillsdale College? Tax Defense Partners? Time Share Exit Team? Really? These guys outbid all the other legitimate advertisers that could have come on board? Time Share Exit Team has more funding than Sleep Number? Does Kevin Pearson believe that people don’t notice this stuff? (It’s almost funnier to listen to who advertises on Glenn Beck’s shows – Goldline??? And we should note that the station Limbaugh was demoted to in Los Angeles is the one that carries Beck.)
The reality for Limbaugh is that he’s a long way from his heyday of attacking Bill Clinton every day. His response to that fall has been an increasing stream of nasty personal attacks, each of which has damaged his reputation and made advertisers less interested in dealing with him. In the last ten years alone, he has been caught mocking Michael J. Fox’s Parkinson’s, insulting Iraq war veterans with whom he disagreed (by calling them “phony soldiers”), repeatedly attacking President Obama with comments like “I Hope He Fails!!!” and of course, trying to slime Sandra Fluke. These aren’t the actions of someone who believes they’re on top of the world – these are clearly desperate plays for attention.
Limbaugh has good reason to be concerned about the impending expiration of his current deal next year. It is unlikely he will be getting anything like that with the new deal.
Pearson seems unaware of the facts. Limbaugh has in fact been losing radio stations. Here in Los Angeles, he was moved off the Clear Channel flagship, KFI and put on their secondary tier station, now renamed KEIB at the lower powered 1150AM broadcast. (This station only covers part of Los Angeles as opposed to KFI which can cover everywhere from Valencia down to Orange County) Limbaugh has also lost key stations in other cities. Only recently he was throwing a tantrum about not caring about having lost his WABC perch in New York, and that’s without noting that he’s been pulled off the air in other markets like Boston.
The market manager covering WIBC in Indianapolis publicly stated that they pulled Limbaugh off the air because several national sponsors will not consent to have their ads on during his program. (This is also most likely the reason why Clear Channel bumped Limbaugh to the lesser station in Los Angeles.)
There is no evidence that all the sponsors “begged” to be taken back by Limbaugh – other than Limbaugh’s people insisting that it happened. David Friend at Carbonite certainly didn’t. He was unapologetic about it months after the fact, even though right wingers tried to spin the situation the other way around. (Carbonite lost some revenue due to their principled choice to walk away from Limbaugh – that revenue drop, as Friend noted at the time, was due to their needing to find other national programming to replace Limbaugh, not due to Limbaugh being the key to their future.)
And let’s look at who’s been advertising on his shows since he attacked Fluke – Hillsdale College? Tax Defense Partners? Time Share Exit Team? Really? These guys outbid all the other legitimate advertisers that could have come on board? Time Share Exit Team has more funding than Sleep Number? Does Kevin Pearson believe that people don’t notice this stuff? (It’s almost funnier to listen to who advertises on Glenn Beck’s shows – Goldline??? And we should note that the station Limbaugh was demoted to in Los Angeles is the one that carries Beck.)
The reality for Limbaugh is that he’s a long way from his heyday of attacking Bill Clinton every day. His response to that fall has been an increasing stream of nasty personal attacks, each of which has damaged his reputation and made advertisers less interested in dealing with him. In the last ten years alone, he has been caught mocking Michael J. Fox’s Parkinson’s, insulting Iraq war veterans with whom he disagreed (by calling them “phony soldiers”), repeatedly attacking President Obama with comments like “I Hope He Fails!!!” and of course, trying to slime Sandra Fluke. These aren’t the actions of someone who believes they’re on top of the world – these are clearly desperate plays for attention.
Limbaugh has good reason to be concerned about the impending expiration of his current deal next year. It is unlikely he will be getting anything like that with the new deal.
Kevin Koster commented on Marco Rubio Should Thank Fox Business For His Debate ‘Win’ Last Night
2015-11-12 11:16:33 -0500
· Flag
Eyes, you’re absolutely right about the turnout. Under any candidate scenario, it is crucial for voters to show up and participate. If anything, that was a major lesson from Ross Perot’s campaign in 1992 and Ralph Nader’s campaign in 2000.
And we should note that during midterm elections, it’s been shown that white GOP voters tend to turn up with much more regularity. Occasionally, this can go another way – such as 2006, when Dems finally showed up for midterms and the GOP got a surprise.
You’re also correct that part of the purpose of all the “outrage” stories aired on Fox News and right wing radio has been to keep the base as lathered up as possible. (The other part of the purpose has had to do with establishing a counter-narrative of history, one where the right wing can point to their own signposts. And this website has served a valuable function in calling out Fox News for these attempts, preserving the behavior for the historical record, and showing what was missing from the right wing version of the story.)
In general elections, more people tend to show up, and again, it’s critical that Dems get voters to actually participate. In both 2008 and 2012, the GOP had a chance at winning, had the Dems not mobilized and turned out – and that’s despite the attempted hurdles the GOP tried to put in front of them. Voter ID being one of the most despicable scams we’ve heard, clearly designed to intimidate non-white Dem voters from voting.
In the situation where Dems are actually voting, like 2008 and 2012, the GOP is faced with a serious demographic problem. It’s one that has snuck up on them over the past 20 years. Back in 1980, Ronald Reagan could win the Presidency, primarily on the votes of white men – he didn’t need to count on female, black or Chicano votes. In 2016, we’re facing a very different voting group. There’s still a large bloc of white male votes – the older wedge of which tilts to the right. But there are also significant blocs of votes from women and other ethnicities. This was a big part of the reason everyone but Karl Rove knew to call Ohio for Obama when they did in 2012 – the areas that hadn’t been fully reported in were primarily non-white and it was known that those voters weren’t going to suddenly vote for Romney.
In this demographic situation, a GOP candidate must be able to mobilize ALL of his base voters and pretty much every other voter he can get. He needs to get all the usual GOP voters out, plus all the Fundamentalists, the hard right, the libertarians, and then even whatever is left of the independent votes. If he can pull that together, then yes, the GOP candidate can win. The problem these days is that Fox News and right wing radio have made it almost impossible to please the hard right and the Fundamentalists. In order to get that group to follow you, like Ted Cruz, you have to sacrifice everyone with common sense. Again, Reagan could get those votes, partly from being a generally appealing guy and partly from the demographic being more solidly white and male in 1980. And various scholars have noted the Reagan of the 1980 campaign probably couldn’t please the hard right today – he’s just not right wing enough for them. (We also have to keep in mind that right wing radio and Fox News have helped push the GOP farther over to the right than we’ve been since the 1950s.)
When the nonsense is finished from the GOP campaigns, we’ll have the usual middle-of-the-road candidate. The GOP base will once again need to decide if they wish to vote for a man who doesn’t stand with their harshest views of history and politics. And recent presidential elections have shown us that a chunk of that base will not vote for someone who doesn’t completely stay with them. The Romney campaign line about the “Etch-a-Sketch” moment was a true statement, but the right wing could not tolerate it. Hence, they didn’t show up. (The right wing has tried to spin this as the Fundamentalists not showing up due to Romney being a Mormon – but that doesn’t explain why the same hard right wing base didn’t turn out for McCain. The answer is that they want someone like a Ted Cruz or a Sean Hannity, and they won’t settle for anything but that.) Given that issue, the GOP candidate has to deal with not only not getting their own base, but also not getting much of the general vote that is not white, male and older.
On the other hand, if the GOP is foolish enough to actually nominate someone like Trump or Cruz to be their candidate, we’re looking at a landslide. Mainstream GOP voters will either vote against those candidates or stay home.
And we should note that during midterm elections, it’s been shown that white GOP voters tend to turn up with much more regularity. Occasionally, this can go another way – such as 2006, when Dems finally showed up for midterms and the GOP got a surprise.
You’re also correct that part of the purpose of all the “outrage” stories aired on Fox News and right wing radio has been to keep the base as lathered up as possible. (The other part of the purpose has had to do with establishing a counter-narrative of history, one where the right wing can point to their own signposts. And this website has served a valuable function in calling out Fox News for these attempts, preserving the behavior for the historical record, and showing what was missing from the right wing version of the story.)
In general elections, more people tend to show up, and again, it’s critical that Dems get voters to actually participate. In both 2008 and 2012, the GOP had a chance at winning, had the Dems not mobilized and turned out – and that’s despite the attempted hurdles the GOP tried to put in front of them. Voter ID being one of the most despicable scams we’ve heard, clearly designed to intimidate non-white Dem voters from voting.
In the situation where Dems are actually voting, like 2008 and 2012, the GOP is faced with a serious demographic problem. It’s one that has snuck up on them over the past 20 years. Back in 1980, Ronald Reagan could win the Presidency, primarily on the votes of white men – he didn’t need to count on female, black or Chicano votes. In 2016, we’re facing a very different voting group. There’s still a large bloc of white male votes – the older wedge of which tilts to the right. But there are also significant blocs of votes from women and other ethnicities. This was a big part of the reason everyone but Karl Rove knew to call Ohio for Obama when they did in 2012 – the areas that hadn’t been fully reported in were primarily non-white and it was known that those voters weren’t going to suddenly vote for Romney.
In this demographic situation, a GOP candidate must be able to mobilize ALL of his base voters and pretty much every other voter he can get. He needs to get all the usual GOP voters out, plus all the Fundamentalists, the hard right, the libertarians, and then even whatever is left of the independent votes. If he can pull that together, then yes, the GOP candidate can win. The problem these days is that Fox News and right wing radio have made it almost impossible to please the hard right and the Fundamentalists. In order to get that group to follow you, like Ted Cruz, you have to sacrifice everyone with common sense. Again, Reagan could get those votes, partly from being a generally appealing guy and partly from the demographic being more solidly white and male in 1980. And various scholars have noted the Reagan of the 1980 campaign probably couldn’t please the hard right today – he’s just not right wing enough for them. (We also have to keep in mind that right wing radio and Fox News have helped push the GOP farther over to the right than we’ve been since the 1950s.)
When the nonsense is finished from the GOP campaigns, we’ll have the usual middle-of-the-road candidate. The GOP base will once again need to decide if they wish to vote for a man who doesn’t stand with their harshest views of history and politics. And recent presidential elections have shown us that a chunk of that base will not vote for someone who doesn’t completely stay with them. The Romney campaign line about the “Etch-a-Sketch” moment was a true statement, but the right wing could not tolerate it. Hence, they didn’t show up. (The right wing has tried to spin this as the Fundamentalists not showing up due to Romney being a Mormon – but that doesn’t explain why the same hard right wing base didn’t turn out for McCain. The answer is that they want someone like a Ted Cruz or a Sean Hannity, and they won’t settle for anything but that.) Given that issue, the GOP candidate has to deal with not only not getting their own base, but also not getting much of the general vote that is not white, male and older.
On the other hand, if the GOP is foolish enough to actually nominate someone like Trump or Cruz to be their candidate, we’re looking at a landslide. Mainstream GOP voters will either vote against those candidates or stay home.
Kevin Koster commented on Fox Declares Carson The Winner Of Fight With Politico Over His West Point Fabrication
2015-11-07 10:55:02 -0500
· Flag
This really wasn’t a surprise, to be honest. Carson was never a real contender for President, and he’d always been a lock to crumble before more than a handful of primaries, if he even were to make it to Iowa. And if anything, this latest gaffe just gives the RNC what it’s been waiting for – a way to seem like they’re supporting Carson while actually tossing him to the sidelines.
The hard right will of course cry foul here, since they’re enjoying tweaking the GOP establishment. But it doesn’t change the fact that Carson willfully puffed up his resume. Had Barack Obama or Bill Clinton been caught in a lie like this, Fox News would have covered nothing but that for YEARS. Even today, we’d be seeing coverage of that any time Bill Clinton’s name came up. But if it’s Ben Carson, Fox News would have us think of it as just another campaign moment to move along from. (On the surface, of course.)
The actual facts around Carson’s situation with both Westmoreland and West Point are different from what he has repeatedly stated, even recently. It seems that Westmoreland did attend a dinner honoring a Medal of Honor recipient that Carson likely also attended as a 2nd Lt in the local ROTC. But that was earlier in the year, not on Memorial Day. We also have no idea whether Carson even met Westmoreland, other than being able to attend the same event. And we do know that the “full scholarship to West Point” line was false. It’s possible someone in his ROTC told him he could potentially be appointed there, but Carson’s narrative about it bears no relationship to what would have happened had he actually been in a position to choose whether or not to attend West Point. The academy would have a record of this, and they do not.
Carson’s new insistence that he never actually applied is still a ways off from the facts. You can’t just apply to attend this academy. They’re extremely exclusive. You have to be appointed, and it’s a big deal for it to happen. Had he actually been appointed and given this opportunity, and then turned it down as he says he did, it’s the sort of thing a lot of people would remember. In reality, it sounds like someone may have suggested it to him as a possibility that he never pursued. But that’s not as noble a story as the one he’s been peddling, is it?
Again, if this were a Democrat candidate, Fox News would have eviscerated him, and would continue to do so every single time his name came up.
What’s more interesting to me is that the Fox News group has adjusted the debate army. As expected, they’re dumping Graham and Pataki. But in a fun development, they’ve banished both Huckabee and Christie to the kids’ table. In the case of Huckabee, I believe it to be a matter of his campaign not having much staying power.
If I didn’t know better, I’d say that Roger Ailes is encouraging Huckabee to come back to the network in time to comment on the primaries, etc. The smart move for Huckabee would be to grab the opportunity – since it would freeze out Ted Cruz, who is clearly campaigning for Huckabee’s slot on the network. It doesn’t allow Huckabee to come back with the huge raise I think he thought he’d get from a new presidential campaign, but it at least allows him to block Cruz and continue to make a very comfortable living while opining at will. When the primaries really get going and Cruz winds up on the sidelines, it will be interesting to see where Cruz goes. If Huckabee blocks him from Fox News, I suppose he could wind up with NewsMax or with Glenn Beck. I frankly always expected both Cruz and Carson to have radio shows by January 2017, from which they’d predictably throw rocks at Hillary Clinton or whichever person gets sworn into the White House next.
With Christie, I think Ailes may actually be giving him a chance to get MORE attention, since he’s getting lost in a sea of lecterns on the stage. In the smaller debate, it’s a better chance for Christie, like Fiorina, to jump out to center stage and take over the evening. And once a few more contenders fall out (Carson, Paul, Rubio), maybe Christie gets to come back to the mainstage…
The hard right will of course cry foul here, since they’re enjoying tweaking the GOP establishment. But it doesn’t change the fact that Carson willfully puffed up his resume. Had Barack Obama or Bill Clinton been caught in a lie like this, Fox News would have covered nothing but that for YEARS. Even today, we’d be seeing coverage of that any time Bill Clinton’s name came up. But if it’s Ben Carson, Fox News would have us think of it as just another campaign moment to move along from. (On the surface, of course.)
The actual facts around Carson’s situation with both Westmoreland and West Point are different from what he has repeatedly stated, even recently. It seems that Westmoreland did attend a dinner honoring a Medal of Honor recipient that Carson likely also attended as a 2nd Lt in the local ROTC. But that was earlier in the year, not on Memorial Day. We also have no idea whether Carson even met Westmoreland, other than being able to attend the same event. And we do know that the “full scholarship to West Point” line was false. It’s possible someone in his ROTC told him he could potentially be appointed there, but Carson’s narrative about it bears no relationship to what would have happened had he actually been in a position to choose whether or not to attend West Point. The academy would have a record of this, and they do not.
Carson’s new insistence that he never actually applied is still a ways off from the facts. You can’t just apply to attend this academy. They’re extremely exclusive. You have to be appointed, and it’s a big deal for it to happen. Had he actually been appointed and given this opportunity, and then turned it down as he says he did, it’s the sort of thing a lot of people would remember. In reality, it sounds like someone may have suggested it to him as a possibility that he never pursued. But that’s not as noble a story as the one he’s been peddling, is it?
Again, if this were a Democrat candidate, Fox News would have eviscerated him, and would continue to do so every single time his name came up.
What’s more interesting to me is that the Fox News group has adjusted the debate army. As expected, they’re dumping Graham and Pataki. But in a fun development, they’ve banished both Huckabee and Christie to the kids’ table. In the case of Huckabee, I believe it to be a matter of his campaign not having much staying power.
If I didn’t know better, I’d say that Roger Ailes is encouraging Huckabee to come back to the network in time to comment on the primaries, etc. The smart move for Huckabee would be to grab the opportunity – since it would freeze out Ted Cruz, who is clearly campaigning for Huckabee’s slot on the network. It doesn’t allow Huckabee to come back with the huge raise I think he thought he’d get from a new presidential campaign, but it at least allows him to block Cruz and continue to make a very comfortable living while opining at will. When the primaries really get going and Cruz winds up on the sidelines, it will be interesting to see where Cruz goes. If Huckabee blocks him from Fox News, I suppose he could wind up with NewsMax or with Glenn Beck. I frankly always expected both Cruz and Carson to have radio shows by January 2017, from which they’d predictably throw rocks at Hillary Clinton or whichever person gets sworn into the White House next.
With Christie, I think Ailes may actually be giving him a chance to get MORE attention, since he’s getting lost in a sea of lecterns on the stage. In the smaller debate, it’s a better chance for Christie, like Fiorina, to jump out to center stage and take over the evening. And once a few more contenders fall out (Carson, Paul, Rubio), maybe Christie gets to come back to the mainstage…
Kevin Koster commented on Watch Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly And George Will Go At It Over ‘Killing Reagan’
2015-11-07 03:05:31 -0500
· Flag
This may be one of the most spectacular O’Reilly interviews I’ve ever seen. He’s clearly enraged by George Will. And Will clearly sees him for what he is. (When you think about it, George Will and Bob Schieffer have more in common on this score than either would like to admit.)
What’s also interesting here is that O’Reilly is actually touching on something very real about the Reagan years that most right wingers don’t want to admit. Reagan was in fact addled and confused for much of his presidency. He was in fact easily manipulated by his cabinet and his advisors, perhaps more so than George W. Bush. He was in fact out of touch with what was happening to average people around the country. There are multiple accounts of his briefings needing to be simplified to an absurd level, to his ideas about politics and the world being strangely askew from reality. So O’Reilly has unwittingly stumbled into something very substantial about the Reagan Administration – but it’s something that the hardline right wing absolutely cannot tolerate being discussed.
Will’s condemnation of the book is based on two core principles. The first is that he will not countenance Reagan being presented in this fashion – it doesn’t jibe with the mythology Will has built for the past 35+ years of his career. The depiction of a confused, out-of-it Reagan would expose Will for what he was back in the day – a hard right apologist for the worst excesses of the Reagan Administration, and a constructor of tall tales to justify those apologies. Tall tales about a strong President who faced down the world and the Democrats at the same time. A strong president who sadly didn’t really exist. (Not to say that Reagan didn’t hold passionate views at times – but he was never able to articulate them without a strong speechwriter. George Schultz had this best in his own notes and testimony about an infamous exchange between Reagan and Weinberger, in which they apparently said:
Weinberger: Mr. President, selling these TOW missiles to Iran is a violation of the Arms Export Control Act. It is illegal. And trying to wash the sale through another country will not make it legal.
Reagan: I can handle the illegality, Cap. But I can’t handle that big, strong Ronald Reagan didn’t do anything to get the hostages out!
Weinberger: Mr. President, visiting hours are on Thursdays…
c.f. Peter Kornbluh and the National Security Archive
Will’s second core principle is more basic to this confrontation. He finds O’Reilly to be an unworthy person trying to present himself as an intellectual. This isn’t a political issue so much as it is a class issue. Will sees right through O’Reilly’s attempts to re-establish himself as a learned historian. And again, there are people on the right and the left who will agree with Will on this point. The fact is, O’Reilly is not a historian by trade or by experience. He’s a well-paid blowhard. For all the wealth and the attention, he’s still the same tantrum thrower who infamously screamed “We’ll DO IT LIVE!!!!” It’s no surprise that Will detests O’Reilly. And in this case, Will is understandably upset that O’Reilly is inadvertently playing up a narrative that would challenge Will’s entire career. O’Reilly, of course, seems totally oblivious to the consequences of his behavior here. Which is again, no surprise.
What’s also interesting here is that O’Reilly is actually touching on something very real about the Reagan years that most right wingers don’t want to admit. Reagan was in fact addled and confused for much of his presidency. He was in fact easily manipulated by his cabinet and his advisors, perhaps more so than George W. Bush. He was in fact out of touch with what was happening to average people around the country. There are multiple accounts of his briefings needing to be simplified to an absurd level, to his ideas about politics and the world being strangely askew from reality. So O’Reilly has unwittingly stumbled into something very substantial about the Reagan Administration – but it’s something that the hardline right wing absolutely cannot tolerate being discussed.
Will’s condemnation of the book is based on two core principles. The first is that he will not countenance Reagan being presented in this fashion – it doesn’t jibe with the mythology Will has built for the past 35+ years of his career. The depiction of a confused, out-of-it Reagan would expose Will for what he was back in the day – a hard right apologist for the worst excesses of the Reagan Administration, and a constructor of tall tales to justify those apologies. Tall tales about a strong President who faced down the world and the Democrats at the same time. A strong president who sadly didn’t really exist. (Not to say that Reagan didn’t hold passionate views at times – but he was never able to articulate them without a strong speechwriter. George Schultz had this best in his own notes and testimony about an infamous exchange between Reagan and Weinberger, in which they apparently said:
Weinberger: Mr. President, selling these TOW missiles to Iran is a violation of the Arms Export Control Act. It is illegal. And trying to wash the sale through another country will not make it legal.
Reagan: I can handle the illegality, Cap. But I can’t handle that big, strong Ronald Reagan didn’t do anything to get the hostages out!
Weinberger: Mr. President, visiting hours are on Thursdays…
c.f. Peter Kornbluh and the National Security Archive
Will’s second core principle is more basic to this confrontation. He finds O’Reilly to be an unworthy person trying to present himself as an intellectual. This isn’t a political issue so much as it is a class issue. Will sees right through O’Reilly’s attempts to re-establish himself as a learned historian. And again, there are people on the right and the left who will agree with Will on this point. The fact is, O’Reilly is not a historian by trade or by experience. He’s a well-paid blowhard. For all the wealth and the attention, he’s still the same tantrum thrower who infamously screamed “We’ll DO IT LIVE!!!!” It’s no surprise that Will detests O’Reilly. And in this case, Will is understandably upset that O’Reilly is inadvertently playing up a narrative that would challenge Will’s entire career. O’Reilly, of course, seems totally oblivious to the consequences of his behavior here. Which is again, no surprise.
Kevin Koster commented on Watch Megyn Kelly Give A Melodramatic Rendition Of Fox’s Fake Version Of Benghazi
2015-10-25 22:42:24 -0400
· Flag
Kelly also went way over the top at the end of her show, as she sorrowfully intoned that the victims’ families “DESERVE TO KNOW”. If I didn’t know better, I’d say Kelly was doing a bit of grandstanding.
The funny thing about the hearing is that you can see right away how badly it backfired on the GOP. Because the clips brought up on the various Fox News shows afterward wound up just being recaps of this or that GOP congressperson trying to Bogart the microphone and get their 15 minutes. Nothing of the supposed “gotcha” moments or “smoking guns” that the Fox News audience was eagerly hoping to see. Instead, they were treated to a spectacle of GOP congresspeople looking fairly incompetent while Clinton calmly stared them down, hour after hour.
This was not the Benghazi Hearing that the Fox News people were looking for…
The funny thing about the hearing is that you can see right away how badly it backfired on the GOP. Because the clips brought up on the various Fox News shows afterward wound up just being recaps of this or that GOP congressperson trying to Bogart the microphone and get their 15 minutes. Nothing of the supposed “gotcha” moments or “smoking guns” that the Fox News audience was eagerly hoping to see. Instead, they were treated to a spectacle of GOP congresspeople looking fairly incompetent while Clinton calmly stared them down, hour after hour.
This was not the Benghazi Hearing that the Fox News people were looking for…