Kevin Koster commented on Reuters: James Rosen's Reporting Was 'Almost Guaranteed' To Attract CIA Attention
2013-05-22 04:13:20 -0400
· Flag
The Watergate comparison being made by the right wing is a silly one and they should know better. I’m not surprised that James Rosen would have written a Nixon-friendly version of the story. Pat Buchanan just tried this recently when he played the game of saying that Watergate was just a matter of some guys breaking into Larry O’Brien’s office, while Benghazi was a real scandal. But these guys are gambling that most people won’t know the actual history of Watergate or of Iran/Contra for that matter. There is a difference between criminal activity and the various political issues that the Obama Administration has faced.
I believe they are likely giving Rosen a pass as the prosecution would just put them in a situation of three years of even sillier nonsense than that which they’ve already faced from Fox News. Further, they’ve already made their point with Rosen and he knows it. And finally, it doesn’t appear that what he was messing around in was at the level of the situation where the AP stepped into it.
I completely agree that there shouldn’t be an issue about leaks or about going after reporters for covering stories. But in that case, the politicians involved should not have signed onto the Patriot Act that made such practices legal. I’m happy to see that they seem to finally be understanding what we were trying to tell them over a decade ago about this foolhardy legislation. But they don’t get to try to take the moral high ground here – not when they were the ones championing the legislation at the time that it could have been stopped or corrected.
I believe they are likely giving Rosen a pass as the prosecution would just put them in a situation of three years of even sillier nonsense than that which they’ve already faced from Fox News. Further, they’ve already made their point with Rosen and he knows it. And finally, it doesn’t appear that what he was messing around in was at the level of the situation where the AP stepped into it.
I completely agree that there shouldn’t be an issue about leaks or about going after reporters for covering stories. But in that case, the politicians involved should not have signed onto the Patriot Act that made such practices legal. I’m happy to see that they seem to finally be understanding what we were trying to tell them over a decade ago about this foolhardy legislation. But they don’t get to try to take the moral high ground here – not when they were the ones championing the legislation at the time that it could have been stopped or corrected.
Kevin Koster commented on Kucinich Told To ‘Move On’ From Criticizing Bush
2013-05-22 13:05:30 -0400
· Flag
I’d also wonder about the right wing canard about the “liberal press”. That thinking may be popular on right wing boards and AM radio, but it’s been discredited many times over.
As for Kucinich’s leanings, I realize his public presentation is as one who wants everyone to reason together. As such, he’s a dependable liberal voice who can be counted on to back down when he’s discussing issues with angry right wing voices that are more sure of themselves. Kucinich certainly got a fair shake from the media throughout his career. It was known that his run for President had no chance, and that he was trying in vain to take the Ralph Nader mantle in 2004. I don’t know that Fox News treated him fairer than CNN – it’s more accurate to say that Fox enjoyed the spectacle of his demise more than other channels, which focused on the front runners of that race. Fox News’ intent in 2004 was to make it look like all the Dem candidates were as liberal as Kucinich, thus painting them all with a single brush. So it was a propaganda consideration rather than a journalistic one that motivated Fox News to cover him at all. And it was yet another example of how biased the situation is at this channel.
Finally, Kucinich didn’t agree to appear as a regular paid commentator on Fox News because he wanted to “try to reason with all.” He’s doing it for the check he gets each week. He’s not paid to win the debates he has on the various Fox News shows. He’s paid to lose them.
As for Kucinich’s leanings, I realize his public presentation is as one who wants everyone to reason together. As such, he’s a dependable liberal voice who can be counted on to back down when he’s discussing issues with angry right wing voices that are more sure of themselves. Kucinich certainly got a fair shake from the media throughout his career. It was known that his run for President had no chance, and that he was trying in vain to take the Ralph Nader mantle in 2004. I don’t know that Fox News treated him fairer than CNN – it’s more accurate to say that Fox enjoyed the spectacle of his demise more than other channels, which focused on the front runners of that race. Fox News’ intent in 2004 was to make it look like all the Dem candidates were as liberal as Kucinich, thus painting them all with a single brush. So it was a propaganda consideration rather than a journalistic one that motivated Fox News to cover him at all. And it was yet another example of how biased the situation is at this channel.
Finally, Kucinich didn’t agree to appear as a regular paid commentator on Fox News because he wanted to “try to reason with all.” He’s doing it for the check he gets each week. He’s not paid to win the debates he has on the various Fox News shows. He’s paid to lose them.
Kevin Koster commented on Fox Newsies Advocate Against Immigration Reform
2013-05-22 12:56:38 -0400
· Flag
AAP makes a good point. The harsher voices on the GOP right wing made concerted efforts to scuttle any attempts at immigration reform during the George W. Bush presidency.
In 2006, the last time before now that an attempt was made, the AM Radio voices began screaming about “Amnesty” for months and their advocates in Congress made sure to stack the bill then in consideration so that it would never pass. At the same time, several extreme right wing legislators put forth measures that were designed to simply drive undocumented immigrants from the country.
Today, we’re getting the same approach from those quarters. Part of the goal is to derail any possibility of an Obama-backed measure from passing. The other part of it is to keep undocumented immigrants in a twilight situation where they can be exploited by various businesses at the same time that they are reviled by public figures and pundits. The point of this approach is that the right wing does not want to see a solution of any kind to this problem. It’s too much of a win-win to keep the undocumented people here as such, thus satisfying two big areas of their constituency.
In 2006, the last time before now that an attempt was made, the AM Radio voices began screaming about “Amnesty” for months and their advocates in Congress made sure to stack the bill then in consideration so that it would never pass. At the same time, several extreme right wing legislators put forth measures that were designed to simply drive undocumented immigrants from the country.
Today, we’re getting the same approach from those quarters. Part of the goal is to derail any possibility of an Obama-backed measure from passing. The other part of it is to keep undocumented immigrants in a twilight situation where they can be exploited by various businesses at the same time that they are reviled by public figures and pundits. The point of this approach is that the right wing does not want to see a solution of any kind to this problem. It’s too much of a win-win to keep the undocumented people here as such, thus satisfying two big areas of their constituency.
Kevin Koster commented on Chris Wallace Obsesses About Which Room Obama Was In During Benghazi Attacks
2013-05-20 14:12:41 -0400
· Flag
Pfeiffer also made the important point about how the email release showed that the GOP had doctored their accounts of what was in them. He got one good shot in when he noted that he hoped that they would be looking into who leaked the doctored emails with the same ferocity that they were chasing people in the Obama Admin.
Kevin Koster commented on Fox's Benghazi Talking Points Implode
2013-05-17 13:11:58 -0400
· Flag
I don’t know that there really are more legitimate questions to ask about this matter. The whole thing was dealt with last fall, when it was relevant. A full report was issued, with a public section and a more classified one that Congress read.
The only reason it got dredged up again was because Fox News and the GOP wanted to embarass HIllary on her way out of office in January. And then when Gregory Hicks and company wanted to make statements to Congress in rebuttal to Hillary, the matter was dredged up yet again.
But all we’re proving with more and more papers on the matter is that there really isn’t anything here. And the more papers that the Obama Admin provides, the more papers will be demanded by the GOP. It’s the same thing as the birth certificate. Hillary’s campaign throws out a nasty below-the-belt shot during a primary and the GOP runs with it. Obama releases the publicly available document, and the birthers and the GOP say “That’s not enough. Give us the ‘Long Form’ version”. After more nonsense about it, including Donald Trump repeatedly lying about it on national television, Obama releases the ‘Long Form’. And the birthers and the GOP say “That’s not enough. Might be a forgery even though that’s ridiculous. Tell you what, give us all of Obama’s school transcripts and writings too.” The nonsense never stops. If he provided those papers, they’d then ask for all of his drafts from the college years. And then they’d ask for his high school essays. And then they’d ask for his middle school essays. It never ends, and feeding the nonsense gets us nowhere.
With Benghazi, these guys just want to keep the story alive, by any means possible. They know there isn’t anything here, but just keeping it alive allows them to continue to throw vicious political smears around while hiding behind the bodies of the ambassador and the other three men who were killed. In the end, the matter will be remembered as a minor footnote, a desperate attempt to rewrite history and only the latest GOP smear campaign against an administration they despise.
The only reason it got dredged up again was because Fox News and the GOP wanted to embarass HIllary on her way out of office in January. And then when Gregory Hicks and company wanted to make statements to Congress in rebuttal to Hillary, the matter was dredged up yet again.
But all we’re proving with more and more papers on the matter is that there really isn’t anything here. And the more papers that the Obama Admin provides, the more papers will be demanded by the GOP. It’s the same thing as the birth certificate. Hillary’s campaign throws out a nasty below-the-belt shot during a primary and the GOP runs with it. Obama releases the publicly available document, and the birthers and the GOP say “That’s not enough. Give us the ‘Long Form’ version”. After more nonsense about it, including Donald Trump repeatedly lying about it on national television, Obama releases the ‘Long Form’. And the birthers and the GOP say “That’s not enough. Might be a forgery even though that’s ridiculous. Tell you what, give us all of Obama’s school transcripts and writings too.” The nonsense never stops. If he provided those papers, they’d then ask for all of his drafts from the college years. And then they’d ask for his high school essays. And then they’d ask for his middle school essays. It never ends, and feeding the nonsense gets us nowhere.
With Benghazi, these guys just want to keep the story alive, by any means possible. They know there isn’t anything here, but just keeping it alive allows them to continue to throw vicious political smears around while hiding behind the bodies of the ambassador and the other three men who were killed. In the end, the matter will be remembered as a minor footnote, a desperate attempt to rewrite history and only the latest GOP smear campaign against an administration they despise.
Kevin Koster commented on Hannity Pal Bill Cunningham: IRS Scandal ‘All About’ Obama Stealing 2012 Election
2013-05-16 21:09:01 -0400
· Flag
I would adjust that slightly:
For Benghazi, the reality is that these guys are trying to argue about the Talking Points Susan Rice had when she went on news shows. I mean, for crying out loud, Talking Points. Meaning they’re arguing about how the Obama people were spinning the attack. If what she did is somehow wrong, then how do they explain about a thousand appearances on news shows as well as speeches where the Bush people flat-out lied? How do they explain not a spin but an outright lie about warfare that hadn’t happened yet? It’s the height of hypocrisy for them to be dwelling on this – or maybe I should say, the depth of hypocrisy. If this situation had happened under Bush, the response by his team would have been to play up the terrorism angle even if it hadn’t been proven, just to use it as a campaign wedge.
For the IRS, the situation was that the 501 c4 classification has resulted in a pile of new applicants, many of whom don’t qualify because what they’re doing is really just rah-rah for one party or the other. What the Ohio employees were trying to do was separate out the ones that were clearly political from the ones who were focused on various social issues. Note that nothing in this stopped those groups from getting their message out – it just delayed when or whether they got their tax exemption. Had this happened under Bush, the Fox News guys would be saying that the IRS was just doing its job under the law.
For the AP Story, this one is the absolute ultimate in hypocrisy. The right wing is actually taking a principled position here, but it’s for the wrong reason. They see this idea as another way to attack Obama. But the thing is – what DOJ did was legal under the Patriot Act. And the right wing totally supported that Act – when it was being handled under Bush. Now they want to oppose it because it’s being used by Obama. Personally, I find the tracking of the phone records distasteful, but then I opposed the Patriot Act from the beginning. People on the left are appropriately outraged about this for that reason. Fox News pundits don’t get to adopt that outrage when they supported the Act that makes the situation possible and legal.
For Benghazi, the reality is that these guys are trying to argue about the Talking Points Susan Rice had when she went on news shows. I mean, for crying out loud, Talking Points. Meaning they’re arguing about how the Obama people were spinning the attack. If what she did is somehow wrong, then how do they explain about a thousand appearances on news shows as well as speeches where the Bush people flat-out lied? How do they explain not a spin but an outright lie about warfare that hadn’t happened yet? It’s the height of hypocrisy for them to be dwelling on this – or maybe I should say, the depth of hypocrisy. If this situation had happened under Bush, the response by his team would have been to play up the terrorism angle even if it hadn’t been proven, just to use it as a campaign wedge.
For the IRS, the situation was that the 501 c4 classification has resulted in a pile of new applicants, many of whom don’t qualify because what they’re doing is really just rah-rah for one party or the other. What the Ohio employees were trying to do was separate out the ones that were clearly political from the ones who were focused on various social issues. Note that nothing in this stopped those groups from getting their message out – it just delayed when or whether they got their tax exemption. Had this happened under Bush, the Fox News guys would be saying that the IRS was just doing its job under the law.
For the AP Story, this one is the absolute ultimate in hypocrisy. The right wing is actually taking a principled position here, but it’s for the wrong reason. They see this idea as another way to attack Obama. But the thing is – what DOJ did was legal under the Patriot Act. And the right wing totally supported that Act – when it was being handled under Bush. Now they want to oppose it because it’s being used by Obama. Personally, I find the tracking of the phone records distasteful, but then I opposed the Patriot Act from the beginning. People on the left are appropriately outraged about this for that reason. Fox News pundits don’t get to adopt that outrage when they supported the Act that makes the situation possible and legal.
Kevin Koster commented on RNC’s Priebus Accuses Holder Of ‘Attack(ing)’ The Constitution – For Upholding Its Rights
2013-05-16 14:02:33 -0400
· Flag
The right wing has been attacking Eric Holder since President Obama announced his appointment. I’ve simply lost count of the number of times the GOP has announced that Holder’s resignation/impeachment/imprisonment/firing was “just about to happen”. Their pursuit of Holder has been interesting just in terms of their obsessivness about him. The result? Holder continues to be our Attorney General and likely will do so until he, not they, decides he’s done.
Kevin Koster commented on Rumsfeld Lectures Obama About Truthfulness Over Benghazi
2013-05-16 13:14:54 -0400
· Flag
I totally missed Denny’s contribution. Shame.
He very quickly took about five uninformed shots and then ran away. I do wish he would have actually provided examples of what he was alleging. As it was, I could only see a reiteration of the usual Fox News talking points.
The primary discussion of the thread stands – it’s truly bizarre to see Donald Rumsfeld being held up as a standard of truth and integrity. His entire tenure in the George W. Bush presidency was marked by his contempt for the press and his arrogance when it came to telling anyone what was going on. Rush Limbaugh used to celebrate Rumsfeld’s obfuscations as some kind of victory. Which would indeed have been a victory over journalism and the principles behind it.
The reality these days is that it’s very difficult for various Bush Administration figures to travel abroad, due to the various war crimes charges that have been levied against them. This doesn’t get spoken about much, and Fox News pretends it doesn’t happen. But there’s a very real possibility that you could see one of these guys getting pulled into court if they slip up and walk into a subpoena overseas.
He very quickly took about five uninformed shots and then ran away. I do wish he would have actually provided examples of what he was alleging. As it was, I could only see a reiteration of the usual Fox News talking points.
The primary discussion of the thread stands – it’s truly bizarre to see Donald Rumsfeld being held up as a standard of truth and integrity. His entire tenure in the George W. Bush presidency was marked by his contempt for the press and his arrogance when it came to telling anyone what was going on. Rush Limbaugh used to celebrate Rumsfeld’s obfuscations as some kind of victory. Which would indeed have been a victory over journalism and the principles behind it.
The reality these days is that it’s very difficult for various Bush Administration figures to travel abroad, due to the various war crimes charges that have been levied against them. This doesn’t get spoken about much, and Fox News pretends it doesn’t happen. But there’s a very real possibility that you could see one of these guys getting pulled into court if they slip up and walk into a subpoena overseas.
Kevin Koster commented on Fox's 'Pro-Life' The Five Uses Gosnell Trial To Push For Abortion Ban?
2013-05-16 13:04:10 -0400
· Flag
I agree with part of what Phillip said. I agree that both sides of any issue will tend to use any public case about it to promote their own beliefs. I also believe that it is up to the women involved to make their own choices and decisions about their bodies and their health.
I disagree with the part where somehow Fox News is thought to have a record of “reporting facts, as well as conflicting beliefs and opinions from both different sides.” That’s simply not what Fox News does, and that’s never been its mission. Fox News was created to promote a right wing belief system. This is done, as has been proven on this site countless times, by carefully cherry picking which facts are presented in a case so that they appear to reinforce a right wing opinion. In many cases, outright opinion is stated as fact. This happens both on the “straight news” shows where questions are framed from an ideological perspective and more openly on the pundit shows where the guys really let it fly.
Fox News is also careful not to bring in a left wing perspective if they can help it. Aside from an occasional visit by Tavis Smiley, their “opposing” commentators are moderate liberals who are usually willing to echo the right wing talking points or accept them as worthy of discussion. Occasionally, one of them, like Kirsten Powers, will finally get fed up and raise her voice a little. But usually you just get someone very genial, like Alan Colmes in his notorious situation on Hannity’s show. Or you get Dennis Kucinich, a liberal Dem who swung a little to the left to try to get the Nader Dems back in the fold in 2004 and now is shilling whatever line Fox News hands him. Or you get Juan Williams, who normally begins a response to a completely ridiculous Hannity screed with “Yeah, Sean, I agree with you. But let me add this too…” At which point Williams has conceded the argument. I would love to see a situation where Fox News actually did include left wingers to counter the untruths. I would love to see Amy Goodman explain issues to Bill O’Reilly. I would love to see Dean Baker correct Stuart Varney on economics. I would love to see Doug Henwood debate Lou Dobbs on the air. But we’re never going to get that on Fox News.
The more pragmatic on the hard right know that they will never be able to repeal Roe v Wade. If they ever succeeded in doing so, they’d kill the GOP as an effective political group for decades, given how big that backlash would be. So they just continue to chip away at it, and they try to use things like the Gosnell case to rile up their most ardent followers.
The reality of the Gosnell case is about what happens when poor women either have no options for reproductive choice, or don’t know what those options are. It’s a case about a man who was preying on poor and non-white women, pure and simple. That’s what came out in 2011, when the story really was news and when everyone but Fox News covered it as news. The right wing should be ashamed of itself for trying in 2013 to rewrite the narrative of this case, and “The Five” should be ashamed of trying to misrepresent Gosnell as a typical abortion provider. And Fox News should be further ashamed of their continued association with Lila Rose and her brand of “gotcha” ambushes. Rose can bloviate all she wants about abortion, but it’s deeply offensive for her to be touting videos in which she sends people to clinics to deliberately lie so that she can hopefully get someone saying the wrong soundbite here or there.
I disagree with the part where somehow Fox News is thought to have a record of “reporting facts, as well as conflicting beliefs and opinions from both different sides.” That’s simply not what Fox News does, and that’s never been its mission. Fox News was created to promote a right wing belief system. This is done, as has been proven on this site countless times, by carefully cherry picking which facts are presented in a case so that they appear to reinforce a right wing opinion. In many cases, outright opinion is stated as fact. This happens both on the “straight news” shows where questions are framed from an ideological perspective and more openly on the pundit shows where the guys really let it fly.
Fox News is also careful not to bring in a left wing perspective if they can help it. Aside from an occasional visit by Tavis Smiley, their “opposing” commentators are moderate liberals who are usually willing to echo the right wing talking points or accept them as worthy of discussion. Occasionally, one of them, like Kirsten Powers, will finally get fed up and raise her voice a little. But usually you just get someone very genial, like Alan Colmes in his notorious situation on Hannity’s show. Or you get Dennis Kucinich, a liberal Dem who swung a little to the left to try to get the Nader Dems back in the fold in 2004 and now is shilling whatever line Fox News hands him. Or you get Juan Williams, who normally begins a response to a completely ridiculous Hannity screed with “Yeah, Sean, I agree with you. But let me add this too…” At which point Williams has conceded the argument. I would love to see a situation where Fox News actually did include left wingers to counter the untruths. I would love to see Amy Goodman explain issues to Bill O’Reilly. I would love to see Dean Baker correct Stuart Varney on economics. I would love to see Doug Henwood debate Lou Dobbs on the air. But we’re never going to get that on Fox News.
The more pragmatic on the hard right know that they will never be able to repeal Roe v Wade. If they ever succeeded in doing so, they’d kill the GOP as an effective political group for decades, given how big that backlash would be. So they just continue to chip away at it, and they try to use things like the Gosnell case to rile up their most ardent followers.
The reality of the Gosnell case is about what happens when poor women either have no options for reproductive choice, or don’t know what those options are. It’s a case about a man who was preying on poor and non-white women, pure and simple. That’s what came out in 2011, when the story really was news and when everyone but Fox News covered it as news. The right wing should be ashamed of itself for trying in 2013 to rewrite the narrative of this case, and “The Five” should be ashamed of trying to misrepresent Gosnell as a typical abortion provider. And Fox News should be further ashamed of their continued association with Lila Rose and her brand of “gotcha” ambushes. Rose can bloviate all she wants about abortion, but it’s deeply offensive for her to be touting videos in which she sends people to clinics to deliberately lie so that she can hopefully get someone saying the wrong soundbite here or there.
Kevin Koster commented on Megyn Kelly Jokes, ‘What If Glenn Beck Was Right’ About President Obama?
2013-05-16 12:38:32 -0400
· Flag
Granted that there are plenty of political groups trying to game the system – on both sides. The IRS shouldn’t be targeting one side or the other. And yes, they adjusted their flagging after it was initially caught, but that doesn’t make it a good practice by any means.
All that said, this was not something that somehow allowed President Obama to somehow alter the election outcome in Ohio, or anywhere else. The fact is that he was always ahead there by all measures other than pollers like Rasmussen, who was desperately trying to prop up the failing Romney campaign.
The right wing seems to want people to believe that these fringe tea party groups could have somehow mobilized a million voters in Ohio – except this forgets that there was already a deafening cacaphony of political ads flooding Ohio for the whole year before the election. Ohio was one of the most heavily lobbied states in the country, if not THE most heavily lobbied one. Romney spent plenty of money there, as did many, many Tea Party groups and other conservative PACs. It made no difference. Obama had a better ground game there and in the end, that was what made the difference.
Notice that none of these people is bringing up the real reasons that several million hardcore GOP didn’t vote for Romney. Romney got the predictable votes of many GOP members who hated Obama on sight, and he got the predictable votes of moderate GOP members who didn’t swing all the way over to the hard right. But he never sold the serious right wingers. They never believed his statements of being a severe conservative and they couldn’t deal with his religion. Past that, Romney badly hurt himself by constantly swinging to the far right and thus alienating some of the moderates as well. And past even that, Romney never appealed to crossover Democrats in any significant manner. But the big wound for Romney was that so many of the “true believers” just wouldn’t vote for him. Which is why you heard all those cries that the GOP voters wanted a “real conservative” rather than Romney. Translation: Romney didn’t appeal to enough people to win – so he lost. End of election, and end of the political trajectory for Mitt Romney, a man who had been groomed since grade school to run for higher office. His epitaph will show that he rose as far as being a Governor, but that he abandoned his duties in search of an even better office he could never achieve.
It’s interesting that the right wing wants to play these items up as much as possible, when they were desperately tamping down much more serious material during the Bush Administration. Further, when people brought up the very real criminality of the George W. Bush presidency, Fox News was on the front lines calling those people treasonous and every other name in the book. Am I the only one who remembers the right wing wagging their fingers and saying “You must not criticize the President during a time of war!” or saying “You don’t support the troops if you criticize our policies!” or best yet, “Americans need to watch what they do, watch what they say!” Of course, now that we have a Democrat president, and one who is not someone these pundits like, all those rules suddenly don’t apply anymore. Now the President is fair game because the right wing “just has some questions”. Right, just a few leading questions that are clearly intended to continue a pattern of disruption, obstruction and harassment that’s been going on since Obama began his 2008 campaign.
Let’s look at these three “huge scandals” and see if there’s any “there there”, as Obama put it this week. There’s Benghazi, which is a situation where our consulate was attacked and where the right wing wants to try to blame Obama for it somehow. So they’re disputing the military assessments (which is a new wrinkle for the right wing – previously they’ve always hid behind the military officers) and they’ve decided on their own that somehow a military force could have magically appeared in this area of Libya at a moment when the entire region was engulfed by rioting over the “Innocence of Muslims” video. As a fallback for that, they want to carp about what “talking points” were given to Susan Rice before she discussed the matter on Sunday talk shows. Which assumes that the right wing wasn’t already disputing anything Rice or Obama said at the time. The “talking points” discussion is flat out ridiculous – if this was a huge cover-up, then why is it that everyone was able to discuss every aspect of the matter openly for the two months up to the election? The answer is that it’s a ruse. Romney and the GOP tried this tack last fall, and it resulted in two humiliating debate defeats for Romney. But for some reason, these guys want to pull the zombie back up off the mat, dust it off, and try it out again.
The IRS matter is one where local guys in Ohio clearly got irritated at the pile of “Tea Party” groups trying to game the system to cheerlead for Romney on the public dime. But the reality is that if they followed the law, those groups do have the right to do this. So the supervisor who caught their behavior made them change the guidelines to include other political groups. And that’s pretty much the story. The “Tea Party” wants to continue to cry foul over this, but there really isn’t any more to discuss. The notion that President Obama was discussing a Cincinatti IRS flagging guideline, much less orchestrating it, is laughable on its face. The fact is that some IRS guys acted inappropriately and were disciplined. And now the Acting Director has resigned as well, showing that there are consequences for this stuff. If that’s a scandal that’s going to bring down an Administration, I’d like to know where it is.
Finally, there’s the AP matter. In this case, you have a serious security leak regarding a terrorism investigation. And yes, it’s pretty scary to have the DOJ getting access to the home phone records of reporters involved in the story. I would absolutely agree that this is one of those things that should cross party lines in terms of people being concerned about it. BUT, and here’s the kicker, this was actually legal. Because the Patriot Act championed by the right wing specifically allows for this kind of surveillance. And the Patriot Act was opposed by the left specifically for things like that. The left said consistently that the Patriot Act was an overreach that could do terrible things to freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and all through that time, Fox News shouted the left down and said this was necessary to protect the USA and “either you’re with us or you’re with the terrorists.” Had such a case come up during the George W. Bush Admin, you would have heard Fox News trumpeting that this was totallly necessary and that the reporters shouldn’t be worried if they have nothing to hide. Since this is happening on Obama’s watch, Fox News wants to pretend that they’re now concerned about people’s free speech rights. Once again, is this a serious “scandal” that will bring down a presidency? No. It’s the DOJ conducting an investigation and ticking off a bunch of people, including reporters – but it’s legal conduct whether we like it or not until we do the right thing and repeal the Patriot Act. I would ask the pundits of Fox News if they are now prepared to support such a repeal, and if they have their apology ready for those of us on the left who have asked for this for over a decade. This doesn’t have to be a big deal for Fox News. Just a humble little one, like “We at Fox News are very, very sorry that we supported the Patriot Act. We were wrong to do so and we acknowledge our error. We at Fox News are very, very sorry that we doubted the integrity and good intentions of the people of the USA and we promise not to do it anymore.” Something tells me this apology may not be coming soon.
In the end, will any of these “huge scandals” resonate with history? Will anyone outside of Fox News pundits be bringing this up in a year? Even James Rosen at Fox doesn’t think so. The reality is that none of this will matter in 2016. Fox News will continue to wave Benghazi around for a while, until they find a new “smoking gun” in some other matter to point at. It’s funny that the Fox News pundits accuse the American people of being distracted by “shiny objects”. (And this was clearly another one of those notorious “daily memos”, since the meme was echoed all over the channel) The fact is that Fox News is dedicated to presenting “shiny objects” to its viewers every day – objects that always seem to play to their lowest instincts and their angriest prejudices.
All that said, this was not something that somehow allowed President Obama to somehow alter the election outcome in Ohio, or anywhere else. The fact is that he was always ahead there by all measures other than pollers like Rasmussen, who was desperately trying to prop up the failing Romney campaign.
The right wing seems to want people to believe that these fringe tea party groups could have somehow mobilized a million voters in Ohio – except this forgets that there was already a deafening cacaphony of political ads flooding Ohio for the whole year before the election. Ohio was one of the most heavily lobbied states in the country, if not THE most heavily lobbied one. Romney spent plenty of money there, as did many, many Tea Party groups and other conservative PACs. It made no difference. Obama had a better ground game there and in the end, that was what made the difference.
Notice that none of these people is bringing up the real reasons that several million hardcore GOP didn’t vote for Romney. Romney got the predictable votes of many GOP members who hated Obama on sight, and he got the predictable votes of moderate GOP members who didn’t swing all the way over to the hard right. But he never sold the serious right wingers. They never believed his statements of being a severe conservative and they couldn’t deal with his religion. Past that, Romney badly hurt himself by constantly swinging to the far right and thus alienating some of the moderates as well. And past even that, Romney never appealed to crossover Democrats in any significant manner. But the big wound for Romney was that so many of the “true believers” just wouldn’t vote for him. Which is why you heard all those cries that the GOP voters wanted a “real conservative” rather than Romney. Translation: Romney didn’t appeal to enough people to win – so he lost. End of election, and end of the political trajectory for Mitt Romney, a man who had been groomed since grade school to run for higher office. His epitaph will show that he rose as far as being a Governor, but that he abandoned his duties in search of an even better office he could never achieve.
It’s interesting that the right wing wants to play these items up as much as possible, when they were desperately tamping down much more serious material during the Bush Administration. Further, when people brought up the very real criminality of the George W. Bush presidency, Fox News was on the front lines calling those people treasonous and every other name in the book. Am I the only one who remembers the right wing wagging their fingers and saying “You must not criticize the President during a time of war!” or saying “You don’t support the troops if you criticize our policies!” or best yet, “Americans need to watch what they do, watch what they say!” Of course, now that we have a Democrat president, and one who is not someone these pundits like, all those rules suddenly don’t apply anymore. Now the President is fair game because the right wing “just has some questions”. Right, just a few leading questions that are clearly intended to continue a pattern of disruption, obstruction and harassment that’s been going on since Obama began his 2008 campaign.
Let’s look at these three “huge scandals” and see if there’s any “there there”, as Obama put it this week. There’s Benghazi, which is a situation where our consulate was attacked and where the right wing wants to try to blame Obama for it somehow. So they’re disputing the military assessments (which is a new wrinkle for the right wing – previously they’ve always hid behind the military officers) and they’ve decided on their own that somehow a military force could have magically appeared in this area of Libya at a moment when the entire region was engulfed by rioting over the “Innocence of Muslims” video. As a fallback for that, they want to carp about what “talking points” were given to Susan Rice before she discussed the matter on Sunday talk shows. Which assumes that the right wing wasn’t already disputing anything Rice or Obama said at the time. The “talking points” discussion is flat out ridiculous – if this was a huge cover-up, then why is it that everyone was able to discuss every aspect of the matter openly for the two months up to the election? The answer is that it’s a ruse. Romney and the GOP tried this tack last fall, and it resulted in two humiliating debate defeats for Romney. But for some reason, these guys want to pull the zombie back up off the mat, dust it off, and try it out again.
The IRS matter is one where local guys in Ohio clearly got irritated at the pile of “Tea Party” groups trying to game the system to cheerlead for Romney on the public dime. But the reality is that if they followed the law, those groups do have the right to do this. So the supervisor who caught their behavior made them change the guidelines to include other political groups. And that’s pretty much the story. The “Tea Party” wants to continue to cry foul over this, but there really isn’t any more to discuss. The notion that President Obama was discussing a Cincinatti IRS flagging guideline, much less orchestrating it, is laughable on its face. The fact is that some IRS guys acted inappropriately and were disciplined. And now the Acting Director has resigned as well, showing that there are consequences for this stuff. If that’s a scandal that’s going to bring down an Administration, I’d like to know where it is.
Finally, there’s the AP matter. In this case, you have a serious security leak regarding a terrorism investigation. And yes, it’s pretty scary to have the DOJ getting access to the home phone records of reporters involved in the story. I would absolutely agree that this is one of those things that should cross party lines in terms of people being concerned about it. BUT, and here’s the kicker, this was actually legal. Because the Patriot Act championed by the right wing specifically allows for this kind of surveillance. And the Patriot Act was opposed by the left specifically for things like that. The left said consistently that the Patriot Act was an overreach that could do terrible things to freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and all through that time, Fox News shouted the left down and said this was necessary to protect the USA and “either you’re with us or you’re with the terrorists.” Had such a case come up during the George W. Bush Admin, you would have heard Fox News trumpeting that this was totallly necessary and that the reporters shouldn’t be worried if they have nothing to hide. Since this is happening on Obama’s watch, Fox News wants to pretend that they’re now concerned about people’s free speech rights. Once again, is this a serious “scandal” that will bring down a presidency? No. It’s the DOJ conducting an investigation and ticking off a bunch of people, including reporters – but it’s legal conduct whether we like it or not until we do the right thing and repeal the Patriot Act. I would ask the pundits of Fox News if they are now prepared to support such a repeal, and if they have their apology ready for those of us on the left who have asked for this for over a decade. This doesn’t have to be a big deal for Fox News. Just a humble little one, like “We at Fox News are very, very sorry that we supported the Patriot Act. We were wrong to do so and we acknowledge our error. We at Fox News are very, very sorry that we doubted the integrity and good intentions of the people of the USA and we promise not to do it anymore.” Something tells me this apology may not be coming soon.
In the end, will any of these “huge scandals” resonate with history? Will anyone outside of Fox News pundits be bringing this up in a year? Even James Rosen at Fox doesn’t think so. The reality is that none of this will matter in 2016. Fox News will continue to wave Benghazi around for a while, until they find a new “smoking gun” in some other matter to point at. It’s funny that the Fox News pundits accuse the American people of being distracted by “shiny objects”. (And this was clearly another one of those notorious “daily memos”, since the meme was echoed all over the channel) The fact is that Fox News is dedicated to presenting “shiny objects” to its viewers every day – objects that always seem to play to their lowest instincts and their angriest prejudices.
Kevin Koster commented on Dick Cheney Lectures Obama About Benghazi And Preventing Terrorism Attacks
2013-05-14 04:17:36 -0400
· Flag
I’m actually glad to know that Dick Cheney is concerned about what he calls egregious abuses when it comes to things like the Benghazi consulate attack or the IRS matter.
Because this means he’s finally ready to accept some responsibility for his own conduct in the Valerie Plame matter, when he and Karl Rove decided to punish Joe Wilson for publicly defying them about Iraq and WMDs by exposing Wilson’s wife Valerie’s CIA status to the press. I’m glad to know that Cheney is finally going to step up and admit his involvement in this national security matter and stop hiding behind his chief of staff Scooter Libby. This is great news and people should let Cheney know they’re happy to hear it.
It’s also nice to know that Cheney has not taken the time to actually review the Benghazi matter, seeing as how the ARB report has been available for several months already. Maybe if he actually read these materials, he might learn a thing or two about what was going on at the time he thinks that a military team was going to magically appear at one consulate in a region where there were riots and embassy attacks breaking out everywhere. I’m sure that Cheney wasn’t advocating telling all those other embassies that they were on their own while we devoted ourselves to a mop-up effort after the attack had been concluded. Or was he?
And it’s quite relevant how Cheney dealt with the multiple embassy and consulate attacks that happened on the Bush Administration’s watch. Perhaps Cheney would like to explain the loss of life in each of those cases and why he didn’t provide better security.
The thing about Cheney is that he’s always been good about speaking with assurance, usually about subjects of which he knows not much.
Because this means he’s finally ready to accept some responsibility for his own conduct in the Valerie Plame matter, when he and Karl Rove decided to punish Joe Wilson for publicly defying them about Iraq and WMDs by exposing Wilson’s wife Valerie’s CIA status to the press. I’m glad to know that Cheney is finally going to step up and admit his involvement in this national security matter and stop hiding behind his chief of staff Scooter Libby. This is great news and people should let Cheney know they’re happy to hear it.
It’s also nice to know that Cheney has not taken the time to actually review the Benghazi matter, seeing as how the ARB report has been available for several months already. Maybe if he actually read these materials, he might learn a thing or two about what was going on at the time he thinks that a military team was going to magically appear at one consulate in a region where there were riots and embassy attacks breaking out everywhere. I’m sure that Cheney wasn’t advocating telling all those other embassies that they were on their own while we devoted ourselves to a mop-up effort after the attack had been concluded. Or was he?
And it’s quite relevant how Cheney dealt with the multiple embassy and consulate attacks that happened on the Bush Administration’s watch. Perhaps Cheney would like to explain the loss of life in each of those cases and why he didn’t provide better security.
The thing about Cheney is that he’s always been good about speaking with assurance, usually about subjects of which he knows not much.
Kevin Koster commented on Geraldo Rivera Smacks Down Bolling On Benghazi And The Obama Daughters
2013-05-13 18:51:24 -0400
· Flag
Bolling has said too many things about this to back off now, so he’s doubling down. The saddest part of this for him is that he’s going to have nowhere to go when he wants people to not remember his conduct here. In a year or so, when this entire story is remembered in a much different light, what will he be able to say to explain himself?
Kevin Koster commented on Allen West’s Completely Unsubstantiated Suggestion That IRS Scandal Is Linked To Debunked Auto Bailout Conspiracy
2013-05-13 18:39:00 -0400
· Flag
I don’t know which is more ludicrous: the inflammatory and offensive charge that Allen West is making without challenge, or the fact that anyone thinks he is a credible interview subject on this matter.
Kevin Koster commented on Congressman Adam Smith Highlights Fox’s Partisan Obsession With The Benghazi Talking Points
2013-05-12 21:28:00 -0400
· Flag
Car, you didn’t just repost a petition from WORLD NET DAILY did you? You do realize that’s a completely discredited and unreliable rumor mill operated by Jerome Corsi, right? Or is your post a bit of parody?
Kevin Koster commented on Dennis Kucinich Serves As Fox News’ Benghazi Tool
2013-05-12 21:17:19 -0400
· Flag
Both Dennis Kucinich and Kirsten Powers have been showing this tendency for the last few months. Initially I believed this might just be them showing that they were more independently minded, thus able to entertain some Democrat positions and some GOP positions. But this has gotten to the point where their usual response to a Hannity or O’Reilly attack on Obama is “Well, I’m a Democrat and I don’t like this either!” So one has to conclude that Ailes or someone talked to them and reminded them where the paycheck is coming from.
Just once I’d love to see Amy Goodman, Larry Bensky, Joshua Frank or Norman Solomon get brought on one of these shows. But you’ll never get to hear them on Fox News now – they’re actual left wing people who are intelligent enough to make solid arguments. (Jeff Cohen did appear on Fox News back in 2000 on “Fox News Watch”, but that was the last time I saw a real left winger show up on the network more than maybe once in a blue moon. Granted, Tavis Smiley and Cornel West have popped up here and there, but not nearly to any level of regularity.)
I also agree that Fox News and AM radio have been doing their darndest to keep this Benghazi hunt alive. Even in the face of not having a real story here, even in the face of a completed investigation that Congress already has in hand, even in the face of knowing that this is a hunt about finger pointing and not anything substantive, Fox News keeps at it. I can only think that they just want to have some dirt to throw at the Democrats, and they need this one until they can find a new idea. One has to wonder if this is how they intend to conduct the 2014 midterm campaigns or the 2016 Presidential race.
Just once I’d love to see Amy Goodman, Larry Bensky, Joshua Frank or Norman Solomon get brought on one of these shows. But you’ll never get to hear them on Fox News now – they’re actual left wing people who are intelligent enough to make solid arguments. (Jeff Cohen did appear on Fox News back in 2000 on “Fox News Watch”, but that was the last time I saw a real left winger show up on the network more than maybe once in a blue moon. Granted, Tavis Smiley and Cornel West have popped up here and there, but not nearly to any level of regularity.)
I also agree that Fox News and AM radio have been doing their darndest to keep this Benghazi hunt alive. Even in the face of not having a real story here, even in the face of a completed investigation that Congress already has in hand, even in the face of knowing that this is a hunt about finger pointing and not anything substantive, Fox News keeps at it. I can only think that they just want to have some dirt to throw at the Democrats, and they need this one until they can find a new idea. One has to wonder if this is how they intend to conduct the 2014 midterm campaigns or the 2016 Presidential race.
Kevin Koster commented on Geraldo Rivera Now In Line With Hyping Benghazi As Watergate
2013-05-12 16:35:05 -0400
· Flag
Dave, you may be right. I’m not sure I was posting here when Ralph did, or if maybe he’s using new identities now. There is a real Mark Traina out there, and this post is referencing his websites.
Whoever he is, this is a really strange post.
Whoever he is, this is a really strange post.
Kevin Koster commented on Charles Krauthammer's Claim That Media Ignored Gosnell Is Still Wrong!
2013-05-14 15:29:44 -0400
· Flag
Gregory, your post does not make much sense.
If you’re saying that Charles Krauthamer is more fair and balanced than other pundits, I’m not sure if you can be serious about this. Krauthammer has unabashedly supported Fox News’ issue positions on multiple occasions. He was a cheerleader for Mitt Romney last year and showed genuine anger on election night after he was surprised with the defeat. He tried to make an issue out of the “Churchill’s Bust” nonsense that had been debunked a year earlier. And now he’s trumpeting the nonsense about a very serious criminal trial that Fox News has been trying to politicize and distort. If anyone thinks this conduct is somehow “fair and balanced”, I’d wonder what the standard for judgment was.
And while I can appreciate someone trying to use a libertarian approach, I frankly don’t agree that this is a matter of just “objectively perceiving the universe”. Libertarian philosophy, in a nutshell, posits that we’re all in it for ourselves and that’s the way it should be. It’s been summarized quite well by Doug Henwood as IGMFU. The idea is “Why should I pay for my neighbors’ kids to go to school or get health care? Let them take care of theirs and I’ll take care of mine. Why should I pay taxes for everyone else to have a fire department or a police department? Why should I pay for a public school if I have my kids in private school? Why not just have everyone take care of themselves?”
The problem with this philosophy is that it assumes not only that everyone will equally be able to take care of themselves but also that we have no civic duty to each other as part of a society. It’s also in direct contradiction to the spiritual traditions many “family values” conservatives claim to uphold. It’s an appealing philosophy if the perspective is that someone wants to achieve on their own and keep their spoils – and this of course lives on the dreams that most people have of becoming wealthy on their own. But the reality is that most people don’t, and many pundits who present this idea to their radio and TV audiences never deal with that reality. They just play the game of “Isn’t it ridiculous that we’re paying taxes for this idea or that idea? Isn’t it ridiculous that there are unions for government workers? Isn’t it ridiculous that we don’t just cut all the taxes and do away with as much of the government as possible?” It’s this philosophy that leads to false stories like O’Reilly’s infamous 15 dollar muffin or accounts of the salaries of various government employees being too high. (I exempt the City of Bell situation from this discussion as that was one of clear abuse of the system.)
The point is that the Libertarian ideology runs counter to the idea of a mutually cooperative society as we have developed it over thousands of years. We have strived to create a society where a rising tide lifts all boats and we all work together at some level to help each other. The Libertarian response would be to say that those people who have the strength to build or the means to acquire one can have a boat, while anyone without the means can just struggle along in the water on their own. As history has repeatedly shown us, this results in the well-to-do doing well and the majority going underwater quickly.
If you’re saying that Charles Krauthamer is more fair and balanced than other pundits, I’m not sure if you can be serious about this. Krauthammer has unabashedly supported Fox News’ issue positions on multiple occasions. He was a cheerleader for Mitt Romney last year and showed genuine anger on election night after he was surprised with the defeat. He tried to make an issue out of the “Churchill’s Bust” nonsense that had been debunked a year earlier. And now he’s trumpeting the nonsense about a very serious criminal trial that Fox News has been trying to politicize and distort. If anyone thinks this conduct is somehow “fair and balanced”, I’d wonder what the standard for judgment was.
And while I can appreciate someone trying to use a libertarian approach, I frankly don’t agree that this is a matter of just “objectively perceiving the universe”. Libertarian philosophy, in a nutshell, posits that we’re all in it for ourselves and that’s the way it should be. It’s been summarized quite well by Doug Henwood as IGMFU. The idea is “Why should I pay for my neighbors’ kids to go to school or get health care? Let them take care of theirs and I’ll take care of mine. Why should I pay taxes for everyone else to have a fire department or a police department? Why should I pay for a public school if I have my kids in private school? Why not just have everyone take care of themselves?”
The problem with this philosophy is that it assumes not only that everyone will equally be able to take care of themselves but also that we have no civic duty to each other as part of a society. It’s also in direct contradiction to the spiritual traditions many “family values” conservatives claim to uphold. It’s an appealing philosophy if the perspective is that someone wants to achieve on their own and keep their spoils – and this of course lives on the dreams that most people have of becoming wealthy on their own. But the reality is that most people don’t, and many pundits who present this idea to their radio and TV audiences never deal with that reality. They just play the game of “Isn’t it ridiculous that we’re paying taxes for this idea or that idea? Isn’t it ridiculous that there are unions for government workers? Isn’t it ridiculous that we don’t just cut all the taxes and do away with as much of the government as possible?” It’s this philosophy that leads to false stories like O’Reilly’s infamous 15 dollar muffin or accounts of the salaries of various government employees being too high. (I exempt the City of Bell situation from this discussion as that was one of clear abuse of the system.)
The point is that the Libertarian ideology runs counter to the idea of a mutually cooperative society as we have developed it over thousands of years. We have strived to create a society where a rising tide lifts all boats and we all work together at some level to help each other. The Libertarian response would be to say that those people who have the strength to build or the means to acquire one can have a boat, while anyone without the means can just struggle along in the water on their own. As history has repeatedly shown us, this results in the well-to-do doing well and the majority going underwater quickly.