Kevin Koster commented on Monica Crowley Conspiracy Theory Of The Day: Obamacare Is Really About Government Power And Control
2013-09-28 15:56:37 -0400
· Flag
Hypocrisy was rampant in this segment, particularly with both Republicans laughably insisting they’d repeatedly extended offers to President Obama to “negotiate”. That’s a false statement, and they both knew it. What they meant to say was that they had repeatedly tried to obstruct and block the law, and when their attempt to get the law overturned by the Supreme Court failed, they’ve been trying to circumvent it any way they can. Their mock concern over “government control” is another strange notion – they have no problem with control that they agree with, such as restricting women’s access to healthcare. The reality is that they’re simply frustrated that President Obama’s ACA is going into effect whether they like it or not, and they’re having a temper tantrum while it happens.
The real question now is what John Boehner will do with his caucus today. It sounds like they’re trying to take another “gut the ACA” vote and then send the budget bill back to the Senate rather than simply approving the budget. If they do that, they will trigger a shutdown, simply because the Senate will not be able to return the bill to the House until mid-week, due to the rules about cloture, etc. The options they’re discussing are the same untenable ones that were dismissed weeks and months ago, and it appears the GOP and Fox News have not learned their lesson about them yet.
If the House votes to gut the ACA out of the budget bill again, and sends that version back to the Senate, then the Senate will likely repeat what they did this week, which will involve removing the incorrect and inflammatory language and then returning the bill to the House. Which means the House is just setting themselves up to have an identical vote in another week, which will be after the shutdown, at which point they will be forced to explain why they are behaving in such an irresponsible manner. This also leads directly into the Debt Ceiling discussion, which the House will have effectively blown due to their intransigence here. And it’s a sad fact that Fox News seems to be cheerleading this approach all the way.
The real question now is what John Boehner will do with his caucus today. It sounds like they’re trying to take another “gut the ACA” vote and then send the budget bill back to the Senate rather than simply approving the budget. If they do that, they will trigger a shutdown, simply because the Senate will not be able to return the bill to the House until mid-week, due to the rules about cloture, etc. The options they’re discussing are the same untenable ones that were dismissed weeks and months ago, and it appears the GOP and Fox News have not learned their lesson about them yet.
If the House votes to gut the ACA out of the budget bill again, and sends that version back to the Senate, then the Senate will likely repeat what they did this week, which will involve removing the incorrect and inflammatory language and then returning the bill to the House. Which means the House is just setting themselves up to have an identical vote in another week, which will be after the shutdown, at which point they will be forced to explain why they are behaving in such an irresponsible manner. This also leads directly into the Debt Ceiling discussion, which the House will have effectively blown due to their intransigence here. And it’s a sad fact that Fox News seems to be cheerleading this approach all the way.
Kevin Koster commented on Republican Rep. Peter King Blasts Sen. Ted Cruz As A ‘Phony’ ‘Fraud’
2013-09-28 13:48:31 -0400
· Flag
I noted this in another thread, but it bears repeating. Notice what O’Reilly does in this segment – it’s really sneaky. He tries to propose a “compromise” where President Obama negotiates with the House GOP and agrees to delay the implementing of the ACA for a year for anyone who doesn’t want to comply with it. (Which basically guts it). That’s not a compromise by any means, and it’s actually a tipping of the debate toward the far right wing positions taken by Fox News and GOP politicians like Cruz. Within his “No Spin Zone”, O’Reilly is actually trying to move the playing field about 100 yards over to the right without his viewers noticing it. After all, he sounds reasonable, doesn’t he?
Except that Bill conveniently ignores that President Obama and the Democrats have spent countless days and hours discussing, debating and negotiating with the GOP over the ACA. The GOP has had countless opportunities to propose amendments and corrections. The Dems even caved on the public option, which should have been the center of the legislation in the first place. The GOP’s response was to continue to try to block the whole idea from happening, just so they could use it as a campaign prop. Not to mention that Fox News and the GOP have been desperately trying to kill the ACA as part of their attempt to write a first draft of history – and in their version, President Obama is seen as a complete failure.
It’s crucial that O’Reilly be called out for this kind of behavior because, again, it’s really sneaky.
Except that Bill conveniently ignores that President Obama and the Democrats have spent countless days and hours discussing, debating and negotiating with the GOP over the ACA. The GOP has had countless opportunities to propose amendments and corrections. The Dems even caved on the public option, which should have been the center of the legislation in the first place. The GOP’s response was to continue to try to block the whole idea from happening, just so they could use it as a campaign prop. Not to mention that Fox News and the GOP have been desperately trying to kill the ACA as part of their attempt to write a first draft of history – and in their version, President Obama is seen as a complete failure.
It’s crucial that O’Reilly be called out for this kind of behavior because, again, it’s really sneaky.
Kevin Koster commented on Hannity’s Bromance With Ted Cruz And His Phony, Destructive Obamacare Defunding Efforts Continues
2013-09-28 13:39:07 -0400
· Flag
It’s not just that Ted Cruz is brazenly lying about the ACA and the reasons for his publicity stunt. (And he is demonstrably lying. He’s misstating pretty much everything except his own name. And since he knew he wouldn’t be accomplishing anything, it’s obvious that the real reason for this display was for him to grandstand and promote himself. Sadly, this may pay off for him after his Senate term or terms end and he winds up in Huckabee’s weekend slot on FNC.) It’s not just that Fox News and the GOP have so much hatred for this President that they can’t see anything he does in any light other than disastrous for the country. And it’s not just that the rhetoric has been strangely amped up over the past month while the GOP once again tries to blackmail the rest of the country.
What makes all of this a little sick is that Fox News has been trying to use the current situation to tilt the debate in a really sneaky way. At the extreme end of this curve, you have Hannity openly cheering Cruz on for his obstruction and Cavuto happily citing untrue talking points. But then on O’Reilly, you have Bill sagely intoning that there are extremists on both sides and the best course would be for President Obama to negotiate with the right wingers and for them to find a compromise in the middle – say, by delaying the ACA for another year. Notice what O’Reilly just did there? He’s pretending that the middle of the road here is to give the GOP some of what they want by gutting or delaying the ACA long enough to give the right wing time to find another way to kill it before it goes into effect. That’s not the middle of the road. That’s midway up the far right part of the road! Middle of the road would be what several Democrats have suggested – let the GOP make positive suggestions of adjustments that can be made, and the Congress can act accordingly, as they do with all such laws. But that’s not what the right wing wants. They are desperate to keep the law from being implemented, even though it’s already funded and will go into effect whether they like it or not.
O’Reilly’s supposedly “balanced” approach ignores that the Democrats have repeatedly attempted to work on the ACA with the GOP, during the period of its drafting through to the present day. The GOP responded not with honest efforts to work on the law but instead with every bit of obstruction and stalling they could muster. Again, as Anthony Weiner correctly noted in 2009, the GOP’s intent was to obstruct, obstruct, obstruct so they could delay, delay, delay. And the purpose of that was to prevent the law from being passed and/or enacted. So they could say with authority during an election campaign that President Obama had failed even when it came to the signature legislation he’d promised to get passed. Now that he’s succeeded in getting a modified version of it through, the GOP seems almost suicidal in its fervor to kill the law after the fact. O’Reilly’s “balanced” solution just gives the GOP support and ammunition in their attempts to chip away at it and get rid of it.
Even smarmier was the approach taken by Greta van Susteren in her Friday night interviews with Cruz and Michelle Bachmann. At one point, van Susteren actually pondered aloud why Harry Reid didn’t congratulate Cruz for bogarting the microphone for 21 hours. Somehow, Reid is considered “uncivil” by van Susteren for expressing the truth – that Cruz wasted 21 hours of the Senate’s time on his showboat, to no avail. I’m hoping that Ellen has preserved that moment from Greta’s show – it’s one that actually got me to laugh out loud. And again, it’s a subtle attempt to tip the discussion into the right wing side of the road. In this world, somehow the options range from the far far right wing approach of just killing the law completely by repealing it to just the far right wing approach of trying to cut off its funding. And frankly, the idea of Michelle Bachmann as a reasonable party here is almost as laughable as the notion of Harry Reid being uncivil.
What makes all of this a little sick is that Fox News has been trying to use the current situation to tilt the debate in a really sneaky way. At the extreme end of this curve, you have Hannity openly cheering Cruz on for his obstruction and Cavuto happily citing untrue talking points. But then on O’Reilly, you have Bill sagely intoning that there are extremists on both sides and the best course would be for President Obama to negotiate with the right wingers and for them to find a compromise in the middle – say, by delaying the ACA for another year. Notice what O’Reilly just did there? He’s pretending that the middle of the road here is to give the GOP some of what they want by gutting or delaying the ACA long enough to give the right wing time to find another way to kill it before it goes into effect. That’s not the middle of the road. That’s midway up the far right part of the road! Middle of the road would be what several Democrats have suggested – let the GOP make positive suggestions of adjustments that can be made, and the Congress can act accordingly, as they do with all such laws. But that’s not what the right wing wants. They are desperate to keep the law from being implemented, even though it’s already funded and will go into effect whether they like it or not.
O’Reilly’s supposedly “balanced” approach ignores that the Democrats have repeatedly attempted to work on the ACA with the GOP, during the period of its drafting through to the present day. The GOP responded not with honest efforts to work on the law but instead with every bit of obstruction and stalling they could muster. Again, as Anthony Weiner correctly noted in 2009, the GOP’s intent was to obstruct, obstruct, obstruct so they could delay, delay, delay. And the purpose of that was to prevent the law from being passed and/or enacted. So they could say with authority during an election campaign that President Obama had failed even when it came to the signature legislation he’d promised to get passed. Now that he’s succeeded in getting a modified version of it through, the GOP seems almost suicidal in its fervor to kill the law after the fact. O’Reilly’s “balanced” solution just gives the GOP support and ammunition in their attempts to chip away at it and get rid of it.
Even smarmier was the approach taken by Greta van Susteren in her Friday night interviews with Cruz and Michelle Bachmann. At one point, van Susteren actually pondered aloud why Harry Reid didn’t congratulate Cruz for bogarting the microphone for 21 hours. Somehow, Reid is considered “uncivil” by van Susteren for expressing the truth – that Cruz wasted 21 hours of the Senate’s time on his showboat, to no avail. I’m hoping that Ellen has preserved that moment from Greta’s show – it’s one that actually got me to laugh out loud. And again, it’s a subtle attempt to tip the discussion into the right wing side of the road. In this world, somehow the options range from the far far right wing approach of just killing the law completely by repealing it to just the far right wing approach of trying to cut off its funding. And frankly, the idea of Michelle Bachmann as a reasonable party here is almost as laughable as the notion of Harry Reid being uncivil.
Kevin Koster commented on O’Donnell: Is Fox’s Ed Henry A ‘Pinhead Or Liar’ For Asking Jay Carney If He’ll Enroll In Obamacare?
2013-09-27 12:49:39 -0400
· Flag
I don’t know that I believe that chain letter. It sounds like a typical attempt to scare people without giving the reasons why someone’s premium could go up. It’s very possible that this letter is partly describing a situation where someone had very minimal coverage which would leave the rest of us holding the bag when the non-covered areas happened.
The point for nearly everyone who has coverage through their employer or through their union is that their plan isn’t going to change. I’m covered through the excellent plan of my guild. There will be slight tweaks to the plan to get it to comply with the law, but nothing that I’m going to see in terms of costs.
For people who were refusing to have any coverage, yes, this will wind up costing them some money. Because they were using the Emergency Room as their health insurance coverage, and making the rest of us pay for it.
I’m not a huge fan of this law, since it doesn’t include the Single Payer component that will wind up being the only way we can control the increasing health costs for everyone. But this will at least get us a lot closer to the goal of having everyone covered and it will help start to alleviate a problem that’s been building up for decades. It won’t solve the problem – Single Payer will do that. But it’s a small step toward the solution.
The reason the GOP and Fox News is fear mongering about this isn’t because they think it will hurt the country. It isn’t because they really think that everyone’s premiums are going to skyrocket. It’s because they’re angry that President Obama and the Democrats were able to pass it in the first place. The GOP plan was to call President Obama a failure and to obstruct every single thing he did to prove themselves correct. Since the ACA is the one major legislative achievement during his term, the GOP has been fervent about trying to kill it. But they failed to kill it. They tried to block it through all the parliamentary tricks and it still passed. They tried to get GOP-controlled states to refuse to apply it, and they’ve failed in that area. They tried legal action to get the Supreme Court to throw it out, only to see the law held constitutional.
So now what do they do? They try to selectively fund government programs. Somehow, their new solution is to offer to fund the government – at least everything except the ACA. In other words, they’re trying to break the law and they’re trying to pick and choose which parts of the government they wish to have continue. Aside from being a childish maneuver, the GOP is opening up a can of worms I don’t think they’ve figured out yet. Because there are plenty of government programs the left would be happy not to fund – say funding for military contractors, funding for Dick Cheney’s various enterprises, funding for companies like Blackwater. Is the GOP ready to put all that on the chopping block?
As for Ed Henry, he’s been trying these gotcha questions for years. His entire MO at the Obama White House has been to try to embarrass the President or his spokesperson at every turn. The question about coverage was a cheap shot, but a typical one for Henry. It lines up with plenty of other ones he’s taken, such as last year when he would regularly present Mitt Romney statements as questions on various topics to try to force Jay Carney to answer them. And pretty much every time, Carney would school Henry on the fact that Fox News was acting as an advocate for Romney rather than asking anything approaching a legitimate question.
The point for nearly everyone who has coverage through their employer or through their union is that their plan isn’t going to change. I’m covered through the excellent plan of my guild. There will be slight tweaks to the plan to get it to comply with the law, but nothing that I’m going to see in terms of costs.
For people who were refusing to have any coverage, yes, this will wind up costing them some money. Because they were using the Emergency Room as their health insurance coverage, and making the rest of us pay for it.
I’m not a huge fan of this law, since it doesn’t include the Single Payer component that will wind up being the only way we can control the increasing health costs for everyone. But this will at least get us a lot closer to the goal of having everyone covered and it will help start to alleviate a problem that’s been building up for decades. It won’t solve the problem – Single Payer will do that. But it’s a small step toward the solution.
The reason the GOP and Fox News is fear mongering about this isn’t because they think it will hurt the country. It isn’t because they really think that everyone’s premiums are going to skyrocket. It’s because they’re angry that President Obama and the Democrats were able to pass it in the first place. The GOP plan was to call President Obama a failure and to obstruct every single thing he did to prove themselves correct. Since the ACA is the one major legislative achievement during his term, the GOP has been fervent about trying to kill it. But they failed to kill it. They tried to block it through all the parliamentary tricks and it still passed. They tried to get GOP-controlled states to refuse to apply it, and they’ve failed in that area. They tried legal action to get the Supreme Court to throw it out, only to see the law held constitutional.
So now what do they do? They try to selectively fund government programs. Somehow, their new solution is to offer to fund the government – at least everything except the ACA. In other words, they’re trying to break the law and they’re trying to pick and choose which parts of the government they wish to have continue. Aside from being a childish maneuver, the GOP is opening up a can of worms I don’t think they’ve figured out yet. Because there are plenty of government programs the left would be happy not to fund – say funding for military contractors, funding for Dick Cheney’s various enterprises, funding for companies like Blackwater. Is the GOP ready to put all that on the chopping block?
As for Ed Henry, he’s been trying these gotcha questions for years. His entire MO at the Obama White House has been to try to embarrass the President or his spokesperson at every turn. The question about coverage was a cheap shot, but a typical one for Henry. It lines up with plenty of other ones he’s taken, such as last year when he would regularly present Mitt Romney statements as questions on various topics to try to force Jay Carney to answer them. And pretty much every time, Carney would school Henry on the fact that Fox News was acting as an advocate for Romney rather than asking anything approaching a legitimate question.
Kevin Koster commented on Democrat Penny Lee Applauds Ted Cruz For Sticking To His Principles
2013-09-26 12:42:50 -0400
· Flag
Penny Lee has made some good points on Fox News before, but this is only the latest example of her trying to be more conciliatory and agreeable when confronted with hard right intransigence on Hannity’s show. It’s moments like these that make me wish that we could see a real leftist on Hannity’s show – someone like Amy Goodman or Jeff Cohen or Norman Solomon or Larry Bensky. Someone like Dean Baker or Joshua Frank or Doug Henwood. But Hannity won’t have people like that on his show. He has had Cornel West on occasionally, but has barely engaged with him.
There are two harsh truths that need to be acknowledged here. First, this isn’t a competition between which side of the aisle can demonize the other one more. If it was, the right wing would win the race by a good mile or two. The right wing has regularly accused Democrat Presidents of murder, has regularly tried to trump up charges against them, and has regularly made the most inflammatory statements possible without being held to any account on Fox News. This site serves as an archive for many of the most ridiculous statements made on the air – including angry, hateful displays by Michelle Malkin, Katie Pavlich and many others. Pavlich tried without success to peddle the phony “Fast and Furious” matter into a media career for herself, including trying to use the death of a Border Patrol Agent as a stepping stone for herself. People need to remember that Pavlich has no credibility after that, regardless of whether she and Hannity would like that discussion to be forgotten. Malkin has regularly shouted some of the most unbelievable personal attacks I’ve ever heard on the air.
Contrast that with the left wing making statements of justifiable concern about the aggression of the Nixon, Reagan, Bush and W Bush presidencies. The left never said what Ann Coulter did about invading Middle Eastern countries and converting their populations to Christianity. The left simply noted that it was the same group of cabinet guys working in all those presidencies who were enriching themselves at everyone else’s expense. The left didn’t support invasions and assassinations – they opposed such behavior on principle, while the right openly salivated about engaging in that behavior. I would agree that there are posters of all opinions on message boards who have stooped to a low level of personal attack, but that’s frankly not the driving idea in left wing media like Pacifica Radio. And right wing pundits, including those who are sheltered on Fox News, know this well – something they regularly acknowledge by the smirks they make while making their claims.
The second truth, which is arguably more important, is that right wing opposition to the ACA has nothing to do with some all-encompassing concern about “damage to the economy”. It has nothing to do with the right wing really caring so much about the rule of law, or about helping out the middle class. This is about the right wing’s anger and hatred toward President Obama. They’ve hated him since before he even declared his candidacy for President for 2008. The right wing convinced themselves there was no way Obama could win the 2008 election, and they even told their constituents and radio/television audiences that he couldn’t win. And they doubled down on this idea in 2012. When Obama won both times, the right wing was outraged. So rather than deal with the man, they took the childish route – they made a decision to fold their arms, stomp their foot and yell “NO!” every time President Obama and the Democrats tried to get anything through Congress.
The GOP opposition to the ACA had nothing to do with a principled issue, since President Obama had triangulated them by using Romney’s plan from Massachusetts as its basis. (And the left’s issue with the ACA has always been that the real solution to this problem is Single Payer, which we’ll eventually get, but which the ACA postpones for another decade or so.) The GOP was offered carrots in this law time and time again, most egregiously when the Democrats agreed to remove the public option. (And I would argue that the GOP only wanted that out so they could encourage opposition on the left.) But the GOP never had any intention of voting for this legislation. Their entire purpose, as Anthony Weiner correctly pointed out at the time, was to obstruct, obstruct, obstruct so they could delay, delay, delay, so they could continue to obstruct, obstruct, obstruct. The GOP was hoping they could kill this legislation just like they killed the Clinton health care reform in the 90s. If they could have delayed it another month or two, they could have gotten it off the calendar and forced it into the 2010 Election. Instead, the Dems got the bill passed in spite of all the obstruction, and President Obama signed it into law.
So the GOP threw bigger tantrums, including somewhere around 30 meaningless votes by House GOP members to repeal the law. They mounted lawsuits against the law with the clear intent of getting it before what they believed would be a friendly Supreme Court during the 2012 Election. Except that the Supreme Court ruled that the law was constitutional, handing the right wing a crushing defeat and denying Mitt Romney a talking point he was desperately hoping to use in his doomed presidential bid. So what does the GOP do now? They try a phony parliamentary ploy to simply refuse to fund a constitutional law that they don’t like. If this kind of ploy actually worked in the real world, there must be at least a hundred areas that the left wing would prefer not be funded in the government. And the GOP knows this ploy won’t work – all of the latest behavior is just grandstanding and showboating by Ted Cruz and friends.
I would argue that Cruz knows he won’t become President as a result of his behavior here. His intention isn’t to get him a higher office. His intention is to get a lucrative media contract for himself after he serves one or two terms in the Senate. He’s clearly hoping to become a Fox News personality like Mike Huckabee or Sarah Palin. And from the looks of it, his plan will succeed.
When it comes to GOP behavior in the Congress, we frankly must keep in mind that threatening a shutdown has become the GOP’s regular tactic. They do this every single time a budget comes up for a vote, and every single time the debt ceiling comes up for an increase vote. They take every one of these situations right to the brink, to repeatedly test the Democrats’ resolve and to repeatedly attempt to embarrass and obstruct President Obama. The GOP has tried this tactic under every possible permutation, including trying to do it during the Christmas holiday break. It’s pretty clear that their intent is to make the Obama presidency as unpleasant as they can. Something tells me that history will have a much harsher judgment of them once all the facts are known in public another ten years. Which is why it is so vitally important that propaganda efforts by outlets like Fox News be challenged and debunked as quickly as Ellen can catch them. Fox News is trying to write a biased first draft of history. It is crucial that the record show that the Fox News version of events is actually an opinion rather than a fact.
There are two harsh truths that need to be acknowledged here. First, this isn’t a competition between which side of the aisle can demonize the other one more. If it was, the right wing would win the race by a good mile or two. The right wing has regularly accused Democrat Presidents of murder, has regularly tried to trump up charges against them, and has regularly made the most inflammatory statements possible without being held to any account on Fox News. This site serves as an archive for many of the most ridiculous statements made on the air – including angry, hateful displays by Michelle Malkin, Katie Pavlich and many others. Pavlich tried without success to peddle the phony “Fast and Furious” matter into a media career for herself, including trying to use the death of a Border Patrol Agent as a stepping stone for herself. People need to remember that Pavlich has no credibility after that, regardless of whether she and Hannity would like that discussion to be forgotten. Malkin has regularly shouted some of the most unbelievable personal attacks I’ve ever heard on the air.
Contrast that with the left wing making statements of justifiable concern about the aggression of the Nixon, Reagan, Bush and W Bush presidencies. The left never said what Ann Coulter did about invading Middle Eastern countries and converting their populations to Christianity. The left simply noted that it was the same group of cabinet guys working in all those presidencies who were enriching themselves at everyone else’s expense. The left didn’t support invasions and assassinations – they opposed such behavior on principle, while the right openly salivated about engaging in that behavior. I would agree that there are posters of all opinions on message boards who have stooped to a low level of personal attack, but that’s frankly not the driving idea in left wing media like Pacifica Radio. And right wing pundits, including those who are sheltered on Fox News, know this well – something they regularly acknowledge by the smirks they make while making their claims.
The second truth, which is arguably more important, is that right wing opposition to the ACA has nothing to do with some all-encompassing concern about “damage to the economy”. It has nothing to do with the right wing really caring so much about the rule of law, or about helping out the middle class. This is about the right wing’s anger and hatred toward President Obama. They’ve hated him since before he even declared his candidacy for President for 2008. The right wing convinced themselves there was no way Obama could win the 2008 election, and they even told their constituents and radio/television audiences that he couldn’t win. And they doubled down on this idea in 2012. When Obama won both times, the right wing was outraged. So rather than deal with the man, they took the childish route – they made a decision to fold their arms, stomp their foot and yell “NO!” every time President Obama and the Democrats tried to get anything through Congress.
The GOP opposition to the ACA had nothing to do with a principled issue, since President Obama had triangulated them by using Romney’s plan from Massachusetts as its basis. (And the left’s issue with the ACA has always been that the real solution to this problem is Single Payer, which we’ll eventually get, but which the ACA postpones for another decade or so.) The GOP was offered carrots in this law time and time again, most egregiously when the Democrats agreed to remove the public option. (And I would argue that the GOP only wanted that out so they could encourage opposition on the left.) But the GOP never had any intention of voting for this legislation. Their entire purpose, as Anthony Weiner correctly pointed out at the time, was to obstruct, obstruct, obstruct so they could delay, delay, delay, so they could continue to obstruct, obstruct, obstruct. The GOP was hoping they could kill this legislation just like they killed the Clinton health care reform in the 90s. If they could have delayed it another month or two, they could have gotten it off the calendar and forced it into the 2010 Election. Instead, the Dems got the bill passed in spite of all the obstruction, and President Obama signed it into law.
So the GOP threw bigger tantrums, including somewhere around 30 meaningless votes by House GOP members to repeal the law. They mounted lawsuits against the law with the clear intent of getting it before what they believed would be a friendly Supreme Court during the 2012 Election. Except that the Supreme Court ruled that the law was constitutional, handing the right wing a crushing defeat and denying Mitt Romney a talking point he was desperately hoping to use in his doomed presidential bid. So what does the GOP do now? They try a phony parliamentary ploy to simply refuse to fund a constitutional law that they don’t like. If this kind of ploy actually worked in the real world, there must be at least a hundred areas that the left wing would prefer not be funded in the government. And the GOP knows this ploy won’t work – all of the latest behavior is just grandstanding and showboating by Ted Cruz and friends.
I would argue that Cruz knows he won’t become President as a result of his behavior here. His intention isn’t to get him a higher office. His intention is to get a lucrative media contract for himself after he serves one or two terms in the Senate. He’s clearly hoping to become a Fox News personality like Mike Huckabee or Sarah Palin. And from the looks of it, his plan will succeed.
When it comes to GOP behavior in the Congress, we frankly must keep in mind that threatening a shutdown has become the GOP’s regular tactic. They do this every single time a budget comes up for a vote, and every single time the debt ceiling comes up for an increase vote. They take every one of these situations right to the brink, to repeatedly test the Democrats’ resolve and to repeatedly attempt to embarrass and obstruct President Obama. The GOP has tried this tactic under every possible permutation, including trying to do it during the Christmas holiday break. It’s pretty clear that their intent is to make the Obama presidency as unpleasant as they can. Something tells me that history will have a much harsher judgment of them once all the facts are known in public another ten years. Which is why it is so vitally important that propaganda efforts by outlets like Fox News be challenged and debunked as quickly as Ellen can catch them. Fox News is trying to write a biased first draft of history. It is crucial that the record show that the Fox News version of events is actually an opinion rather than a fact.
Kevin Koster commented on Robert Reich Challenges O’Reilly To ‘Be A Man’ And Debate
2013-09-26 11:41:57 -0400
· Flag
I would like to think that O’Reilly could actually have a good debate with Robert Reich. But this has gotten personal, which always makes for a disastrous result with O’Reilly. O’Reilly would likely feel that putting Reich on his show would be viewed as him “caving”. And if he did agree to put him on, it would be to engage in a shouting match akin to what happened when he threw his tantrum at Barney Frank.
Kevin Koster commented on Bill O'Reilly: Muslims Are Terrorists, Christians Squeaky Clean!
2013-09-24 12:58:09 -0400
· Flag
Here we go again with another vicious Jesse Watters attack segment. Essentially, Watters was there not to ask questions but to try to embarrass, mock and shame the conventiongoers. He wasn’t interested in what Muslims think about any of these issues He just wanted to catch a few people off guard and make them look foolish for his segment.
If he wanted to know about recent Christian terror attacks, he could have looked up the 2011 Norway bombing and shootings by Anders Breivik. He could have done a two minute google search to see that Adam Lanza and his mother were Catholic churchgoers before Lanza shot up Sandy Hook Elementary. Or he could have asked about John Zawahri, who shot up Santa Monica in June this year. And how about James Holmes, who shot up the movie theater in Aurora last summer – he was Lutheran. As a sidenote, there’s Jared Loughner, who shot up Gabrielle Giffords and a crowd of people in Tuscon. He identified as Jewish, so that’s not the same thing, but he’s not a Muslim either.
The point being that Watters’ entire premise is wrong-headed. The fact is that everyday people of every religion condemn the acts of terrorists. There are extremists in pretty much every group, and the sad fact is that it is not that hard for these people to get their hands on guns or explosives and do a heck of a lot of damage and killing before they are stopped. And before Watters or his supporters try to play the card that all the Muslim terror attacks are prompted by their religion, I note that Breivik was most certainly prompted by hatred of other races and religions, and that the killings by both Loughner and the Boston Marathon brothers were prompted by politics more than religion.
O’Reilly’s blanket approach to these matters, and Watter’s smarmy way of discussing them, are unfortunately more indicative of Fox News’ bias than the guys may have intended.
If he wanted to know about recent Christian terror attacks, he could have looked up the 2011 Norway bombing and shootings by Anders Breivik. He could have done a two minute google search to see that Adam Lanza and his mother were Catholic churchgoers before Lanza shot up Sandy Hook Elementary. Or he could have asked about John Zawahri, who shot up Santa Monica in June this year. And how about James Holmes, who shot up the movie theater in Aurora last summer – he was Lutheran. As a sidenote, there’s Jared Loughner, who shot up Gabrielle Giffords and a crowd of people in Tuscon. He identified as Jewish, so that’s not the same thing, but he’s not a Muslim either.
The point being that Watters’ entire premise is wrong-headed. The fact is that everyday people of every religion condemn the acts of terrorists. There are extremists in pretty much every group, and the sad fact is that it is not that hard for these people to get their hands on guns or explosives and do a heck of a lot of damage and killing before they are stopped. And before Watters or his supporters try to play the card that all the Muslim terror attacks are prompted by their religion, I note that Breivik was most certainly prompted by hatred of other races and religions, and that the killings by both Loughner and the Boston Marathon brothers were prompted by politics more than religion.
O’Reilly’s blanket approach to these matters, and Watter’s smarmy way of discussing them, are unfortunately more indicative of Fox News’ bias than the guys may have intended.
Kevin Koster commented on Bill O'Reilly Accuses "Ink Stained Wench" Miss Kansas Of Dishonesty
2013-09-20 08:44:57 -0400
· Flag
That Miller segment had one really sneaky moment by O’Reilly if you watch for it. O’Reilly and Miller were complaining about how President Obama continues to have support in spite of various typical second term issues. O’Reilly mused that he thinks that voters are somehow resisting the notion that they chose the wrong candidate last year. He actually tried to play the card that the voters elected the wrong person and that polling somehow reflects their denial about this matter. It was the strangest pretzel twist I’ve seen from him in a while and one of the most revealing ones.
Kevin Koster commented on Tamara Holder Smacks Down Bill Cunningham’s Sexist Hate Mongering
2013-09-20 08:32:43 -0400
· Flag
This was a bizarre segment. Cunningham was viciously unrepentant for his behavior the last time. He’d clearly been talked to about the things he’d said and done and was trying to get in as many shots as he could before being cut off by anyone.
I’m not even sure what Holder was thinking in agreeing to appear in a segment with Cunningham again as it’s pretty obvious that she really dislikes him. Her move with the candy was quite strange.
When he started jabbing his finger at her, she took on a more dangerous tone with him. At which point I couldn’t figure out why anyone wanted to put them on together again. This is the sort of thing where the visceral problem between the commentators was so palpable that I don’t know why any network would think it was a good idea to do this – much less do it again after what happened the last time.
I’m not even sure what Holder was thinking in agreeing to appear in a segment with Cunningham again as it’s pretty obvious that she really dislikes him. Her move with the candy was quite strange.
When he started jabbing his finger at her, she took on a more dangerous tone with him. At which point I couldn’t figure out why anyone wanted to put them on together again. This is the sort of thing where the visceral problem between the commentators was so palpable that I don’t know why any network would think it was a good idea to do this – much less do it again after what happened the last time.
Kevin Koster commented on Ted Cruz Likens Himself To Winston Churchill In Phony Fight To Defund Obamacare
2013-09-20 08:39:27 -0400
· Flag
By the way, there’s some really sneaky game-playing going on with the GOP and Fox News on this issue. If you pay attention, they are now using the talking point that the ACA is a “bill” that they don’t think should be passed. Except that it isn’t a bill. It’s LAW. It was passed by Congress in 2009. It was upheld by the Supreme Court last year, in spite of all the GOP and Fox News hopes that it would not be. Powers last night correctly noted that the law doesn’t need to be passed, which effectively guts this entire point of attack. And she noted that the GOP doesn’t oppose it for the reasons they’re trying to say in public. They oppose it because they hate Obama and they wish to undermine anything they can about his presidency. Not too hard to figure that one out,
Kevin Koster commented on Hannity The Big Loser Of FNC's Prime Time Shuffle
2013-09-18 02:34:45 -0400
· Flag
Both Hannity and Van Susteren are being demoted. Van Susteren is being pulled up to the early hour as a recognition that her own ratings have been doing less than spectacular numbers. Hannity is being pushed to the later hour to allow Fox to burn off their commitment without in their mind hurting the rest of their lineup.
I agree that Hannity will almost completely tape his shows from this point forth. The only time you’ll see him do anything live will be for elections coverage or major events. The rest will be canned material, like his “focus group” specials.
The real problem Fox will have is with the new show by Megyn Kelly. She’s already shown herself to be unpredictable and volatile. Can she anchor a primetime show far from her usual morning duties? We’ll have to see if she has anything beyond what she threw at Kirsten Powers over the Black Panthers. If she doesn’t, Fox News could find itself in some very serious trouble with its primetime lineup. O’Reilly will of course continue to get the older demo to tune in, but there’s a real question of how many more years he has in him to anchor a primetime show. How much longer before he turns into the next Brit Hume and just offers color commentary once a week?
I agree that Hannity will almost completely tape his shows from this point forth. The only time you’ll see him do anything live will be for elections coverage or major events. The rest will be canned material, like his “focus group” specials.
The real problem Fox will have is with the new show by Megyn Kelly. She’s already shown herself to be unpredictable and volatile. Can she anchor a primetime show far from her usual morning duties? We’ll have to see if she has anything beyond what she threw at Kirsten Powers over the Black Panthers. If she doesn’t, Fox News could find itself in some very serious trouble with its primetime lineup. O’Reilly will of course continue to get the older demo to tune in, but there’s a real question of how many more years he has in him to anchor a primetime show. How much longer before he turns into the next Brit Hume and just offers color commentary once a week?
Kevin Koster commented on Neil Cavuto: No One Begrudges Helping The Poor, We Just Don’t Care If They Go Hungry
2013-09-16 05:13:05 -0400
· Flag
This is a typical Fox News and GOP exercise in mean-spiritedness. They essentially create a straw man argument from the given hypothesis that the poor don’t need all those benefits and that the numbers should be slashed. Starting from that thinking, it’s a small matter to come up with justification to say that the benefits are simply not needed or are being funneled to fraudsters. All of this supports the long-running GOP meme about how non-rich people think they’re “entitled” to benefits that the wealthy would rather not support.
Kevin Koster commented on Fox News Guest Wishes Obama Was More Like ‘Respected’ Bush Re Syria
2013-09-08 16:58:52 -0400
· Flag
On what planet was George W. Bush a “respected” leader? He was and is despised by most of the world as a consequence of his terrible conduct while in office. The rest of the world didn’t “respect” his attempt to support pre-emptive actions and invasions. They were alarmed by his behavior and distrustful of the motives of people like Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and Donald Rumsfeld.
There was a moment after 9/11 when the USA had the sympathy of the world, but Bush immediately squandered that good will and turned it completely around by attacking and invading without even probable cause to do so.
Obama’s actions as President have been understandably more cautious and inclusive. That’s not a sign of being “weak” or “an amateur”. That’s a sign of trying to work WITH people around the world to find common solutions and a step away from the arrogance and ignorance of the people who surrounded and advised George W. Bush. We should also note that several members of Bush’s cabinet need to be careful when travelling abroad or they face subpoenas and potential prosecution for their conduct. Are we to believe that people around the world wish to prosecute Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld because they “respect” them?
There was a moment after 9/11 when the USA had the sympathy of the world, but Bush immediately squandered that good will and turned it completely around by attacking and invading without even probable cause to do so.
Obama’s actions as President have been understandably more cautious and inclusive. That’s not a sign of being “weak” or “an amateur”. That’s a sign of trying to work WITH people around the world to find common solutions and a step away from the arrogance and ignorance of the people who surrounded and advised George W. Bush. We should also note that several members of Bush’s cabinet need to be careful when travelling abroad or they face subpoenas and potential prosecution for their conduct. Are we to believe that people around the world wish to prosecute Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld because they “respect” them?
Kevin Koster commented on Juan Williams Epic Benghazi Smackdown Of Karl Rove: This Is Not Going Away... It's Gone, Baby
2013-09-08 16:52:03 -0400
· Flag
The silliest part of the whole clip was Karl Rove trying to muster up his best “I’m OUTRAGED!!!” voice to try to throw mud at the Obama Administration – accusing them of lies, malfeasance and anything else he could think of. Not even a smidge of irony there, considering the significant lies told by the Bush Administration under his watch, and the significant loss of life caused by those lies. Of course, when Rove turned away from Williams, he was openly smirking…
Kevin Koster commented on Sean Hannity To Receive 'Statesman Of The Year' Award From Sarasota GOP
2013-09-06 16:51:31 -0400
· Flag
Ellen, do you ever wonder if the right wing thinks this site is intended to host Kukla, Fran and Ollie?
Kevin Koster commented on Hannity And Allen West Salivate: Syria A Good Reason To Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran
2013-09-06 01:34:19 -0400
· Flag
I find it interesting that Hannity took time to interview a congressman insisting that his constituents were 95 to 1 opposed to military action in this case. It’s not that I believe we should be throwing bombs at anyone – it’s that I find it interesting that Fox News suddenly cares what congresspeople’s constituents think about the issues.
Because in 2003, there were giant protests about our imminent attack on Iraq, and I was hearing that the sentiment was running anywhere from 10-1 to 100-1 AGAINST that invasion in correspondence and calls to Congress. Fox News called the protests treasonous and happily laughed when Bush referred to the protestors as a “focus group”.
So once again we have the scenario of Fox News opposing an action because it is what President Obama is doing, regardless of whether it is consistent with any actual principle or practice.
Because in 2003, there were giant protests about our imminent attack on Iraq, and I was hearing that the sentiment was running anywhere from 10-1 to 100-1 AGAINST that invasion in correspondence and calls to Congress. Fox News called the protests treasonous and happily laughed when Bush referred to the protestors as a “focus group”.
So once again we have the scenario of Fox News opposing an action because it is what President Obama is doing, regardless of whether it is consistent with any actual principle or practice.
Kevin Koster commented on Donald Rumsfeld Scolds Obama For Not Pushing Regime Change In Syria
2013-09-05 11:11:53 -0400
· Flag
Ellen, thank you for preserving this. My own summation of this was nearly word-for-word what you have written. I heard the van Susteren interview on satellite radio and my jaw actually did drop.
How in the world Rumsfeld thinks he can get away with making these comments, and how in the world Fox News thinks it can rewrite history this brazenly is completely beyond me. A man who was forced to resign in disgrace, who worked for an administration that wound up being loathed throughout the world and at home, and who promoted the most disastrous foreign policy I’ve seen in my lifetime has absolutely no place lecturing anyone on these matters. This is frankly akin to putting Bernie Madoff on a business show to advise against people he thinks are frauds.
How in the world Rumsfeld thinks he can get away with making these comments, and how in the world Fox News thinks it can rewrite history this brazenly is completely beyond me. A man who was forced to resign in disgrace, who worked for an administration that wound up being loathed throughout the world and at home, and who promoted the most disastrous foreign policy I’ve seen in my lifetime has absolutely no place lecturing anyone on these matters. This is frankly akin to putting Bernie Madoff on a business show to advise against people he thinks are frauds.
Kevin Koster commented on Todd Starnes' Newest Homophobic Screed: 'Militant Homosexuals' 'Forced' Christian Bakers To Close Doors
2013-09-04 19:41:36 -0400
· Flag
Valerie’s comment is well taken.
The comments from “Aaron” are clearly intended to troll this thread with insults. I have a feeling he’s been posting here under other names…
The comments from “Aaron” are clearly intended to troll this thread with insults. I have a feeling he’s been posting here under other names…
Kevin Koster commented on Fox's Napolitano Suddenly Against Congressional Approval For Military Strike - Now That Obama's For It
2013-09-04 17:24:50 -0400
· Flag
No surprise here. Napolitano is following standard procedure. Of course, if this was a GOP President, Napolitano and the rest would be calling all dissent treasonous. Just like they did when the left challenged Bush.
And I’m sure it’s a coincidence that Rush Limbaugh is now spending his program calling President Obama a “clown” who is “bumbling”. I wonder what Limbaugh would call someone who referred to George W. Bush as a clown?
We should also keep in mind that there is strong resistance to military action against Syria from the left wing and the right wing. But for very different reasons. The left wing opposes bombing Syria for the reason that this would be violence being inflicted in the name of preventing violence. As the left wing repeatedly said in the 2000s, “Not in Our Name”, and as Alexander Cockburn said very well around 2002 “You’ve had an act of barbarism and now you’re going to respond to it with more barbarism. We stand apart from that.”
The right wing opposes action in Syria for the reason that they hate President Obama and wish to obstruct every policy he voices. So if he said he was going to do nothing, they would castigate him for inaction. If he said he was going to attack without approval, they would castigate him for acting like an imperial presidency. If he says he will seek Congressional approval, they castigate him for appearing somehow weak and they demand their congressmen vote against the approval. One wonders if there is ANYTHING President Obama could do that would merit anything but disgust from the right…
And I’m sure it’s a coincidence that Rush Limbaugh is now spending his program calling President Obama a “clown” who is “bumbling”. I wonder what Limbaugh would call someone who referred to George W. Bush as a clown?
We should also keep in mind that there is strong resistance to military action against Syria from the left wing and the right wing. But for very different reasons. The left wing opposes bombing Syria for the reason that this would be violence being inflicted in the name of preventing violence. As the left wing repeatedly said in the 2000s, “Not in Our Name”, and as Alexander Cockburn said very well around 2002 “You’ve had an act of barbarism and now you’re going to respond to it with more barbarism. We stand apart from that.”
The right wing opposes action in Syria for the reason that they hate President Obama and wish to obstruct every policy he voices. So if he said he was going to do nothing, they would castigate him for inaction. If he said he was going to attack without approval, they would castigate him for acting like an imperial presidency. If he says he will seek Congressional approval, they castigate him for appearing somehow weak and they demand their congressmen vote against the approval. One wonders if there is ANYTHING President Obama could do that would merit anything but disgust from the right…
Kevin Koster commented on On Labor Day Weekend, Cashin’ In Demonizes ‘Parasite’ Labor Unions
2013-09-03 10:08:58 -0400
· Flag
This is another example of Eric Bolling making a strange reductivist argument – although it’s notable that he’s being open about his hatred for unions in general here.
The reason the right wing hates unions isn’t because they think they aren’t good for the employees. It isn’t because the right wing is concerned at all about whether the average employee gets a voice in how they are treated or paid at work. And it isn’t because the right wing is trying to “create jobs”. Frankly, the right wing has never shown much of an interest in any of those areas.
The right wing hates unions because they wish the companies could find a way to pay their employees less and give them less in the way of benefits. The right wing hates unions because the companies don’t like having to accede to workers’ needs for a safe and liveable workplace, or to workers’ needs for a pension and a health plan. The right wing would be very happy to go back to a time when companies could pay employees a bare minimum and not need to worry about silly things like pension plans or healthcare options. Because those things cost the people who run the companies a little more money, and they’d rather have that money for themselves. It’s really that simple.
The right wing hates the public sector unions because at this point, they’re probably the most visible and effective unions we have left in the US. Gutting the public sector unions’ pensions and destroying their wage structures would send a powerful message to employees and union members everywhere – if we can do it to these guys, we can do it to you too. And while there is an argument to be made that a bad economy makes it a lot harder for states to fulfill their obligations, that doesn’t mean that the states should simply abandon their contracts with the people who police their cities, put out their fires and teach their children. There are always adjustments that can be made to contracts with each negotiation – but the right wing goal clearly is to simply get rid of them. Witness the union busting tactics in Michigan and Wisconsin over the last couple of years – this will only get worse as time goes on if nobody challenges it. Witness also that the right wingers in Congress have made it their business to do nothing to try to help the economy recover – since such an act would only help both the public sector employees and President Obama. Allowing the recession to effectively continue through obstruction and inaction both gives them an opening to attack the unions more and more openly and gives them yet another stick to poke the President with.
It’s truly sad that the only person on this panel who didn’t want to refer to the unions as toxic couldn’t cite the basic reasons why unions exist. Unions exist because without them workers would be forced to live in conditions that history has shown to be vicious for them and for society in general. Without unions, workers would be paid as close to minimum wage as the companies could get away with, overtime pay would be fairly nonexistent even when workers did that work, workplace safety conditions would be spotty at best, and workers would be on their own, individually, to come up with a way to take care of their own retirement and healthcare from a minimum wage. The presence of unions has meant that employee members have been able to receive a decent wage for their work, have a safer and more livable workplace where they can’t just be fired at the boss’ whim, and have the employer join them in supporting a health and pension plan.
The final red herring in the right wing discussion is always about the workers who don’t want to join unions as their own decision but who must join based on their profession. We always hear the canard about the union dues going to support politicians the right wingers don’t like. And there’s an answer to this. Anyone who doesn’t want to politically support a union can be a financial core member – where they don’t have to have anything to do with what the union does politically or internally, and they can simply participate in the wage and benefit levels. This is considered an anti-social move, to be sure. But people who hate union members have never been worried about that problem in the first place.
I note that Eric Bolling is a member of SAG-AFTRA and enjoys the benefits of that in his own health and pension plans, beyond the overscale salary he is paid by Fox News. I wonder how he’d react if someone told him they were going to take away the pension plan he’d already been paying into for the past ten years. Because that’s what he’s advocating for other people.
The reason the right wing hates unions isn’t because they think they aren’t good for the employees. It isn’t because the right wing is concerned at all about whether the average employee gets a voice in how they are treated or paid at work. And it isn’t because the right wing is trying to “create jobs”. Frankly, the right wing has never shown much of an interest in any of those areas.
The right wing hates unions because they wish the companies could find a way to pay their employees less and give them less in the way of benefits. The right wing hates unions because the companies don’t like having to accede to workers’ needs for a safe and liveable workplace, or to workers’ needs for a pension and a health plan. The right wing would be very happy to go back to a time when companies could pay employees a bare minimum and not need to worry about silly things like pension plans or healthcare options. Because those things cost the people who run the companies a little more money, and they’d rather have that money for themselves. It’s really that simple.
The right wing hates the public sector unions because at this point, they’re probably the most visible and effective unions we have left in the US. Gutting the public sector unions’ pensions and destroying their wage structures would send a powerful message to employees and union members everywhere – if we can do it to these guys, we can do it to you too. And while there is an argument to be made that a bad economy makes it a lot harder for states to fulfill their obligations, that doesn’t mean that the states should simply abandon their contracts with the people who police their cities, put out their fires and teach their children. There are always adjustments that can be made to contracts with each negotiation – but the right wing goal clearly is to simply get rid of them. Witness the union busting tactics in Michigan and Wisconsin over the last couple of years – this will only get worse as time goes on if nobody challenges it. Witness also that the right wingers in Congress have made it their business to do nothing to try to help the economy recover – since such an act would only help both the public sector employees and President Obama. Allowing the recession to effectively continue through obstruction and inaction both gives them an opening to attack the unions more and more openly and gives them yet another stick to poke the President with.
It’s truly sad that the only person on this panel who didn’t want to refer to the unions as toxic couldn’t cite the basic reasons why unions exist. Unions exist because without them workers would be forced to live in conditions that history has shown to be vicious for them and for society in general. Without unions, workers would be paid as close to minimum wage as the companies could get away with, overtime pay would be fairly nonexistent even when workers did that work, workplace safety conditions would be spotty at best, and workers would be on their own, individually, to come up with a way to take care of their own retirement and healthcare from a minimum wage. The presence of unions has meant that employee members have been able to receive a decent wage for their work, have a safer and more livable workplace where they can’t just be fired at the boss’ whim, and have the employer join them in supporting a health and pension plan.
The final red herring in the right wing discussion is always about the workers who don’t want to join unions as their own decision but who must join based on their profession. We always hear the canard about the union dues going to support politicians the right wingers don’t like. And there’s an answer to this. Anyone who doesn’t want to politically support a union can be a financial core member – where they don’t have to have anything to do with what the union does politically or internally, and they can simply participate in the wage and benefit levels. This is considered an anti-social move, to be sure. But people who hate union members have never been worried about that problem in the first place.
I note that Eric Bolling is a member of SAG-AFTRA and enjoys the benefits of that in his own health and pension plans, beyond the overscale salary he is paid by Fox News. I wonder how he’d react if someone told him they were going to take away the pension plan he’d already been paying into for the past ten years. Because that’s what he’s advocating for other people.