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.
Kevin Koster commented on Eric Bolling ‘Just Asks,’ What if Sasha Or Malia Obama Or Chelsea Clinton Had Been Killed Or Injured In Benghazi
2013-05-10 13:35:03 -0400
· Flag
Doors makes a good point, with which I concur.
It’s odd that Eric Bolling, a man who presents himself as a good, decent Christian family man, has no problem saying things like this about someone else’s family. There’s a basic contradiction, and it’s interesting that he can’t see it.
At the same time, the right wing obsession with this story may be simply blinding him and others to the reality of what they are saying. We heard some of this stuff over the last two years about Fast & Furious, during the last big witch hunt. And we’ll no doubt hear more about this one from the right wing. But I still have yet to hear anything that’s news. No outrageous revelations. No smoking guns. Just a disagreement over policy and a lot of finger pointing about how the security level was low enough to allow the attack to happen.
And now they’re going back to Susan Rice’s talking points before going on news shows. (As we heard Trey Gowdy solemnly intone “Five. Different. Times!”) Here’s a news flash to Fox News on this. It’s not a major issue to have the State Department and the intelligence analysts go over such talking points before one of their people goes to the media. It’s actually an everyday thing. It’s also understandable if they decided to remove al Qaeda discussion from these appearances – particularly while they were in the first stages of investigating it and the only possible result would be the GOP witch hunt in the offing. So Susan Rice was told to go with just the facts that they could definitively state – that there were riots happening all across the region, that State (not Gregory Hicks) believed the attack may have started from a spontaneous riot which then went violent. As it turns out, this particular attack was just an opportunistic move by the local al Qaeda sect, taking advantage of all the rioting going on in the area for their cover. And that’s what was discussed in the ARB report that was released later.
But Fox News and Rush Limbaugh want to make Susan Rice an issue again. Let’s remember the difference between her appearances and the Bush Administration conduct they’re trying to throw into the same hopper. Susan Rice was discussing attacks that had already happened and were under investigation. The murders had already occurred and we were working on dealing with the aftermath. The GOP at that time was hoping to use those murders as a campaign talking point in any way it could. They bumbled this, since President Obama had been careful enough in his discussions to cover all the bases. When Mitt Romney tried for a Hail Mary “Gotcha!” at the second debate, he fell flat on his face and was humiliated in a manner I haven’t seen since Lloyd Bentsen dealt with Dan Quayle. After the GOP lost the election, they continued trying to use Benghazi, only to be publicly humiliated again, this time by Hillary Clinton. And they’re still going at it. But again, we’re talking about parsing statements AFTER the attacks. We’re talking about a lot of policy wonking that’s less about protecting anyone than pointing fingers. If Fox News or Rush Limbaugh had anything that indicated that President Obama or his cabinet deliberately endangered their ambassador, they would have been trumpeting that. It would be the headline at Fox News for a month. So what they’ve done instead is try to hint that they have something. But they don’t – it’s all just politicians arguing over the minute details of policy. And it’s funny that Fox News and Rush Limbaugh don’t understand why most people don’t care about that.
Now, when the Bush Administration was engaged in cover-ups, those were about statements that were made BEFORE we invaded Iraq. That was about lies that were told that resulted in thousands upon thousands of deaths, and trillions of dollars of debt for the U.S. And when Joe Wilson publicly discussed some of those lies, the Bush Administration response was to publicly expose his wife as an undercover CIA agent, thus endangering her life and the lives of anyone with whom she had been working. See the difference? THAT is a situation of lies with consequences and reprisals by an Administration trying to cover things up. THAT is a matter of criminal behavior – and the only thing that saved people like Dick Cheney and Karl Rove from prison terms is the fact that Scooter Libby was a good soldier for them. His lies to the investigators of the matter shielded his bosses, and the commutation of his prison sentence left him able to keep silent about the matter while continuing to enjoy the perks of his position at the Hudson Institute. The witch hunt about Benghazi is a matter of finger pointing AFTER the events occurred and is simply a question of petty politics. The fact that the right wing cannot comprehend this simple truth speaks volumes about the trouble they are currently having.
It’s odd that Eric Bolling, a man who presents himself as a good, decent Christian family man, has no problem saying things like this about someone else’s family. There’s a basic contradiction, and it’s interesting that he can’t see it.
At the same time, the right wing obsession with this story may be simply blinding him and others to the reality of what they are saying. We heard some of this stuff over the last two years about Fast & Furious, during the last big witch hunt. And we’ll no doubt hear more about this one from the right wing. But I still have yet to hear anything that’s news. No outrageous revelations. No smoking guns. Just a disagreement over policy and a lot of finger pointing about how the security level was low enough to allow the attack to happen.
And now they’re going back to Susan Rice’s talking points before going on news shows. (As we heard Trey Gowdy solemnly intone “Five. Different. Times!”) Here’s a news flash to Fox News on this. It’s not a major issue to have the State Department and the intelligence analysts go over such talking points before one of their people goes to the media. It’s actually an everyday thing. It’s also understandable if they decided to remove al Qaeda discussion from these appearances – particularly while they were in the first stages of investigating it and the only possible result would be the GOP witch hunt in the offing. So Susan Rice was told to go with just the facts that they could definitively state – that there were riots happening all across the region, that State (not Gregory Hicks) believed the attack may have started from a spontaneous riot which then went violent. As it turns out, this particular attack was just an opportunistic move by the local al Qaeda sect, taking advantage of all the rioting going on in the area for their cover. And that’s what was discussed in the ARB report that was released later.
But Fox News and Rush Limbaugh want to make Susan Rice an issue again. Let’s remember the difference between her appearances and the Bush Administration conduct they’re trying to throw into the same hopper. Susan Rice was discussing attacks that had already happened and were under investigation. The murders had already occurred and we were working on dealing with the aftermath. The GOP at that time was hoping to use those murders as a campaign talking point in any way it could. They bumbled this, since President Obama had been careful enough in his discussions to cover all the bases. When Mitt Romney tried for a Hail Mary “Gotcha!” at the second debate, he fell flat on his face and was humiliated in a manner I haven’t seen since Lloyd Bentsen dealt with Dan Quayle. After the GOP lost the election, they continued trying to use Benghazi, only to be publicly humiliated again, this time by Hillary Clinton. And they’re still going at it. But again, we’re talking about parsing statements AFTER the attacks. We’re talking about a lot of policy wonking that’s less about protecting anyone than pointing fingers. If Fox News or Rush Limbaugh had anything that indicated that President Obama or his cabinet deliberately endangered their ambassador, they would have been trumpeting that. It would be the headline at Fox News for a month. So what they’ve done instead is try to hint that they have something. But they don’t – it’s all just politicians arguing over the minute details of policy. And it’s funny that Fox News and Rush Limbaugh don’t understand why most people don’t care about that.
Now, when the Bush Administration was engaged in cover-ups, those were about statements that were made BEFORE we invaded Iraq. That was about lies that were told that resulted in thousands upon thousands of deaths, and trillions of dollars of debt for the U.S. And when Joe Wilson publicly discussed some of those lies, the Bush Administration response was to publicly expose his wife as an undercover CIA agent, thus endangering her life and the lives of anyone with whom she had been working. See the difference? THAT is a situation of lies with consequences and reprisals by an Administration trying to cover things up. THAT is a matter of criminal behavior – and the only thing that saved people like Dick Cheney and Karl Rove from prison terms is the fact that Scooter Libby was a good soldier for them. His lies to the investigators of the matter shielded his bosses, and the commutation of his prison sentence left him able to keep silent about the matter while continuing to enjoy the perks of his position at the Hudson Institute. The witch hunt about Benghazi is a matter of finger pointing AFTER the events occurred and is simply a question of petty politics. The fact that the right wing cannot comprehend this simple truth speaks volumes about the trouble they are currently having.
Kevin Koster commented on Hannity Gleefully Predicts Benghazi Will Provoke Clintons Into Sabotaging Obama Administration
2013-05-10 12:26:07 -0400
· Flag
I’m trying to figure out the meaning of Kortez’s post. If Kortez is talking about politicians like Darrell Issa and Trey Gowdy using any opportunity to grandstand, and pundits like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity deliberately lying about basic facts of history, I would actually agree. But I can’t tell from the post.
Kevin Koster commented on Issa’s Big Takeaway From His Big Benghazi Hearing: It Was A ‘Terrorist Attack’
2013-05-09 21:25:33 -0400
· Flag
The most telling indicator came today, when Fox News decided the story was about the fact that Fox News was the network that spent the most time covering the hearing. Or to be more precise, Fox News wants people to think that the story is that the other networks aren’t covering such an important matter. No matter that there actually was a fair amount of coverage – Fox News wanted it to be LIVE coverage, and was somehow hoping all the other networks would preempt their programming to spend their day on it.
And no matter that there wasn’t any news that came out of the hearing. Just the same intra-agency disputes we’ve already been hearing about, and which have been clear since Gregory Hicks’ unhappiness was voiced at a much earlier time. I didn’t hear any new information, although they did try to play up the idea that having a State Department Counselor present while Jason Chaffetz was on his fishing expedition was somehow an unheard of idea.
After more than a week of discussions about how this was going to blow the dam wide open, and how these were serious whistleblowers with a huge story to tell, all we got was a repetition of the same criticisms we’ve already heard regarding Benghazi, coupled with some truly unpleasant grandstanding by Trey Gowdy and Darrell Issa. If anything, it appears that the GOP are disappointed that their guys didn’t get their carefully rehearsed soundbites plastered over multiple networks in a live simulcast.
And no matter that there wasn’t any news that came out of the hearing. Just the same intra-agency disputes we’ve already been hearing about, and which have been clear since Gregory Hicks’ unhappiness was voiced at a much earlier time. I didn’t hear any new information, although they did try to play up the idea that having a State Department Counselor present while Jason Chaffetz was on his fishing expedition was somehow an unheard of idea.
After more than a week of discussions about how this was going to blow the dam wide open, and how these were serious whistleblowers with a huge story to tell, all we got was a repetition of the same criticisms we’ve already heard regarding Benghazi, coupled with some truly unpleasant grandstanding by Trey Gowdy and Darrell Issa. If anything, it appears that the GOP are disappointed that their guys didn’t get their carefully rehearsed soundbites plastered over multiple networks in a live simulcast.
Kevin Koster commented on Benghazi Hearing - Live Stream
2013-05-09 05:52:34 -0400
· Flag
Thanks guys.
Kevin Koster commented on Endless Hype on Fox About Tomorrow's Congressional Benghazi Hearing
2013-05-08 15:02:32 -0400
· Flag
Fox News did a sly move in defending the “Innocence of Muslims” video. They didn’t defend the video itself, but they tried to say that it was a free speech issue. Except that they forgot the part where hate speech isn’t exactly free speech. The argument becomes whether a hateful person has the right not only to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater but also to yell something that s/he knows will generate a riot. In this case, that video caused riots across an entire region of the world and resulted in 75 deaths that we know of, not to mention hundreds of injuries.
I agree with Aria that the people who attacked the Benghazi consulate were happy to piggy back on the riots breaking out all over the region. And while the attack was going on, Fox News was spending that time to use the riots as a way to denigrate President Obama. (“The entire Middle East is on fire today! Where’s President Obama?”) It was only after the consulate attack became clearer that Fox News switched up their attacks to say that the video was unimportant and somehow just a free speech matter.
I agree with Aria that the people who attacked the Benghazi consulate were happy to piggy back on the riots breaking out all over the region. And while the attack was going on, Fox News was spending that time to use the riots as a way to denigrate President Obama. (“The entire Middle East is on fire today! Where’s President Obama?”) It was only after the consulate attack became clearer that Fox News switched up their attacks to say that the video was unimportant and somehow just a free speech matter.
Kevin Koster commented on Bill O’Reilly Suggests Obama Will Bomb Syria To Avoid Impeachment Over Benghazi
2013-05-11 16:36:53 -0400
· Flag
Fox News’ ratings have recovered a bit in the past month. Some of this is due to the coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing, some of it due to the usual publicity gambits. We’ll have to see if it holds. Fox News actually lost a fair amount of its audience after the 2012 election cycle, and not just because of the usual fall-off after a major election. Because CNN and MSNBC weren’t showing anywhere near the same percentage or numbers of drop-off. For the first quarter of 2013, MSNBC was actually improving, and apparently taking some of Fox’s audience.
Much of the drop-off from Fox News was clearly due to their viewers feeling they’d been misled last fall. It’s bad enough to watch their candidate lose, but to be told that the pundits knew this would happen and deliberately spun the numbers another way is depressing for anyone to hear. Things changed a bit when people wanted to see how the right wing would present the Boston Marathon materials.
The current numbers for Fox News reflect the fact that they do have a loyal base of right wing viewers, augmented usually by viewers of more moderate or left wing sensibilities who want to know what the GOP positions are on a variety of issues. There is an inherent curiosity on the left toward points of view that differ from one’s own. I have not noticed a similar curiosity on the right – usually, they’re happy to hear their own opinions presented back to them either on AM radio or on Fox News. Which is why you don’t see right wingers watching liberal stations like MSNBC or listening to truly left wing sources like the Pacifica Network.
Much of the drop-off from Fox News was clearly due to their viewers feeling they’d been misled last fall. It’s bad enough to watch their candidate lose, but to be told that the pundits knew this would happen and deliberately spun the numbers another way is depressing for anyone to hear. Things changed a bit when people wanted to see how the right wing would present the Boston Marathon materials.
The current numbers for Fox News reflect the fact that they do have a loyal base of right wing viewers, augmented usually by viewers of more moderate or left wing sensibilities who want to know what the GOP positions are on a variety of issues. There is an inherent curiosity on the left toward points of view that differ from one’s own. I have not noticed a similar curiosity on the right – usually, they’re happy to hear their own opinions presented back to them either on AM radio or on Fox News. Which is why you don’t see right wingers watching liberal stations like MSNBC or listening to truly left wing sources like the Pacifica Network.
Kevin Koster commented on Fox News Is Now Part Of Gosnell Trial!
2013-05-06 18:47:17 -0400
· Flag
If Fox News triggers a mistrial in this case, that would be one heck of a black mark on their record. And that’s the sort of thing that would be worth covering by the mainstream media – “Right Wing Media Outlet Generates Mistrial in Gosnell Trial While Complaining About Coverage”.
Kevin Koster commented on "Fair & Balanced" Fox News Says Gosnell Clinic Is 'Reality' Of American Abortion Industry?
2013-05-08 19:23:44 -0400
· Flag
Debbie and Lisa, that was an impressive bit of trolling.
But neither of your comments make any sense. What do your comments have to do with Fox News’ misrepresentation of the facts around the Gosnell matter?
But neither of your comments make any sense. What do your comments have to do with Fox News’ misrepresentation of the facts around the Gosnell matter?
Kevin Koster commented on At End Of Interview, Dana Perino Tells George W. Bush She’s His ‘Biggest Fan’
2013-05-05 17:29:10 -0400
· Flag
I actually don’t have a problem with Perino doing this interview or expressing her affection for Bush. She was a member of his staff and has never pretended to be an impartial commenter. Given that, I can see why she would do this. And it’s obvious why Fox News, in the midst of trying to rehab Bush’s image, would pick her to do the interview.
That said, I agree that if MSNBC had an Obama staffer interview him in 2020, say, Fox News would scream at the top of their lungs about it.
That said, I agree that if MSNBC had an Obama staffer interview him in 2020, say, Fox News would scream at the top of their lungs about it.
Kevin Koster commented on Sean Hannity: ‘Obama Presidency Is Very Much in Peril’
2013-05-05 14:57:49 -0400
· Flag
Yes, that’s the same John Sununu. The same Sununu who spent the 2012 campaign insulting President Obama and calling him lazy. The same Sununu who has never apologized for those insults and seems to be on a special retainer with Fox News to regularly come up with new ones.
On the other hand, it’s the same John Sununu who bumbled his way through his tenure as George H.W. Bush’s Chief of Staff. It was during that time that Sununu accidentally gave us David Souter as a Supreme Court Justice. Sununu famously assumed that Souter was a secretly hard right judge, only to get a big surprise when it turned out that Souter was an independent who tended to vote from a liberal perspective. The hard right never forgave Sununu for that one (witness all their judicial appointments since then – all of them are openly hard right). The left never forgot it – had Sununu not made this mistake, the right wing would have had a 6-3 majority on the Court as of 1991, which would have stood for nearly 20 years and done untold amounts of damage. We have Sununu’s ineptitude to thank for sparing us from that.
Regarding Kortez’s comments, I agree with part of them. It’s absolutely true that Fox News and the right wing really don’t care about what happened at Benghazi, for all their postured “outrage.” There were repeated attacks on embassies and consulates during the George W. Bush presidency that never got a GOP witch hunt thrown at them. The fact is that the GOP tried this as a “Hail Mary” to prop up Romney’s campaign, only to see it blow up in their faces during the second debate. Rather than admit failure, they doubled down.
So now we have this attempted spectacle of a new hearing with “whistleblowers” this week. Really? Three State Department/Intelligence officials who have already been criticizing the lack of response on the night in question, coming out again to discuss the matter at one of Darrell Issa’s infamous hearings? That’s what the GOP thinks “whistleblowers” are? What about the very real whistleblowers that Fox News sneered about throughout the Bush presidency when they discussed things like the warrantless wiretaps and the other shenanigans? And for the new Issa hearing, we now hear from the “whistleblowers” attorney, Victoria Toensing. That’s the funniest touch of all. Toensing? The GOP advocate who tried to make a career for herself in attacking Bill Clinton and playing up the Lewinsky scandal? That Victoria Toensing? The Victoria Toensing who attacked Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame in public after the Bush people outed Plame? The Victoria Toensing who tried to say that David Petraeus was resigning over Benghazi rather than his own scandal? Who in the world would be gullible enough to think of her as a person of any integrity, particularly in this area?
So yes, it’s pretty obvious that the GOP and Fox News would like to keep bringing up Benghazi, not to get at any truths but to try to embarass the President and hopefully stir people up for the 2014 midterms. I agree that the GOP would love for this to be a campaign talking point in case Hillary Clinton runs again in 2016. I agree that the GOP would love to find some way to twist Benghazi into finding some reason, any reason, to impeach President Obama. But then they’ve been trying that canard over and over again, practically since he took the oath of office in 2009. How many times can they play the same tune about impeachment? How many fake scandals can they try to stir up? Fast & Furious? Joe Sestak? Solyndra? What’s the next one going to be? The reality is that the GOP’s best shot at taking the Senate was in 2012, and they shot themselves in the foot. I don’t see them suddenly sweeping both houses, but you never know. Anything could happen. I tend to believe that we’ll just see a continuation of the current gridlock – a Democrat-majority Senate and a GOP-majority House, albeit with a shrinking number of GOP/Tea Party folk holding seats as more of their constituents get fed up with their intransigence.
Kortez’s final comments don’t make much sense, however. The jab about jobs doesn’t line up with the jobs report we just got, showing the unemployment rate dropping again while upwardly revising the numbers of jobs created over the last few months. So the gloomier numbers we saw earlier now look much better. But we haven’t seen Hannity extolling the new numbers, have we? Nor will we. Fox News has taken great pains to talk DOWN any employment or economic numbers for the past four years. Earlier, this was about creating “facts” with which to attack President Obama in 2012 and run him out of office. Now that tactic seems to be running out of pure spite. These guys seem to want to just make as much of a mess as they can.
I do wish that governance was “easy to do”, but in the real world, it’s actually a lot of work. And you have to have both sides talking to accomplish it. What we’ve now repeatedly seen is the President calling for bipartisan work and making repeated offers, including approaches that are friendlier to GOP politicians. This may well result in an immigration reform bill finally passing the Congress this year. But on almost every front, we’ve seen constant, solid obstruction by the GOP. The strategy since early 2009 has been simple – say “I hope he fails”, vote against everything he proposes and then accuse him of having failed. Repeat as often as possible. I’ll give the GOP points for consistency on this, but that’s not how government work gets done. It’s a shame they havn’t learned that lesson yet.
On the other hand, it’s the same John Sununu who bumbled his way through his tenure as George H.W. Bush’s Chief of Staff. It was during that time that Sununu accidentally gave us David Souter as a Supreme Court Justice. Sununu famously assumed that Souter was a secretly hard right judge, only to get a big surprise when it turned out that Souter was an independent who tended to vote from a liberal perspective. The hard right never forgave Sununu for that one (witness all their judicial appointments since then – all of them are openly hard right). The left never forgot it – had Sununu not made this mistake, the right wing would have had a 6-3 majority on the Court as of 1991, which would have stood for nearly 20 years and done untold amounts of damage. We have Sununu’s ineptitude to thank for sparing us from that.
Regarding Kortez’s comments, I agree with part of them. It’s absolutely true that Fox News and the right wing really don’t care about what happened at Benghazi, for all their postured “outrage.” There were repeated attacks on embassies and consulates during the George W. Bush presidency that never got a GOP witch hunt thrown at them. The fact is that the GOP tried this as a “Hail Mary” to prop up Romney’s campaign, only to see it blow up in their faces during the second debate. Rather than admit failure, they doubled down.
So now we have this attempted spectacle of a new hearing with “whistleblowers” this week. Really? Three State Department/Intelligence officials who have already been criticizing the lack of response on the night in question, coming out again to discuss the matter at one of Darrell Issa’s infamous hearings? That’s what the GOP thinks “whistleblowers” are? What about the very real whistleblowers that Fox News sneered about throughout the Bush presidency when they discussed things like the warrantless wiretaps and the other shenanigans? And for the new Issa hearing, we now hear from the “whistleblowers” attorney, Victoria Toensing. That’s the funniest touch of all. Toensing? The GOP advocate who tried to make a career for herself in attacking Bill Clinton and playing up the Lewinsky scandal? That Victoria Toensing? The Victoria Toensing who attacked Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame in public after the Bush people outed Plame? The Victoria Toensing who tried to say that David Petraeus was resigning over Benghazi rather than his own scandal? Who in the world would be gullible enough to think of her as a person of any integrity, particularly in this area?
So yes, it’s pretty obvious that the GOP and Fox News would like to keep bringing up Benghazi, not to get at any truths but to try to embarass the President and hopefully stir people up for the 2014 midterms. I agree that the GOP would love for this to be a campaign talking point in case Hillary Clinton runs again in 2016. I agree that the GOP would love to find some way to twist Benghazi into finding some reason, any reason, to impeach President Obama. But then they’ve been trying that canard over and over again, practically since he took the oath of office in 2009. How many times can they play the same tune about impeachment? How many fake scandals can they try to stir up? Fast & Furious? Joe Sestak? Solyndra? What’s the next one going to be? The reality is that the GOP’s best shot at taking the Senate was in 2012, and they shot themselves in the foot. I don’t see them suddenly sweeping both houses, but you never know. Anything could happen. I tend to believe that we’ll just see a continuation of the current gridlock – a Democrat-majority Senate and a GOP-majority House, albeit with a shrinking number of GOP/Tea Party folk holding seats as more of their constituents get fed up with their intransigence.
Kortez’s final comments don’t make much sense, however. The jab about jobs doesn’t line up with the jobs report we just got, showing the unemployment rate dropping again while upwardly revising the numbers of jobs created over the last few months. So the gloomier numbers we saw earlier now look much better. But we haven’t seen Hannity extolling the new numbers, have we? Nor will we. Fox News has taken great pains to talk DOWN any employment or economic numbers for the past four years. Earlier, this was about creating “facts” with which to attack President Obama in 2012 and run him out of office. Now that tactic seems to be running out of pure spite. These guys seem to want to just make as much of a mess as they can.
I do wish that governance was “easy to do”, but in the real world, it’s actually a lot of work. And you have to have both sides talking to accomplish it. What we’ve now repeatedly seen is the President calling for bipartisan work and making repeated offers, including approaches that are friendlier to GOP politicians. This may well result in an immigration reform bill finally passing the Congress this year. But on almost every front, we’ve seen constant, solid obstruction by the GOP. The strategy since early 2009 has been simple – say “I hope he fails”, vote against everything he proposes and then accuse him of having failed. Repeat as often as possible. I’ll give the GOP points for consistency on this, but that’s not how government work gets done. It’s a shame they havn’t learned that lesson yet.
Kevin Koster commented on Imus And Beckel Mock ‘Jerk’ O’Reilly
2013-05-03 18:11:55 -0400
· Flag
I think this may have been a little peek under the hood. I don’t think Imus was joking at all, and neither was Beckel. Their point was to praise O’Reilly as a showman while trashing him personally. I didn’t see affection in their discussion of his ego. Their point was to say that O’Reilly is so impressed with himself that he thinks he’s found a new wrinkle on the death of Christ.
Some of this is to be expected, in that I believe O’Reilly is the highest paid entertainer at Fox News and there’s bound to be some sniping at him by the other personalities there. But this went a little farther than the usual gripes – there was a real edge in this.
Some of this is to be expected, in that I believe O’Reilly is the highest paid entertainer at Fox News and there’s bound to be some sniping at him by the other personalities there. But this went a little farther than the usual gripes – there was a real edge in this.
Kevin Koster commented on Will O'Reilly Condemn Glenn Beck's 'Reichstag' Remarks About Houston Airport Shooting?
2013-05-04 05:31:59 -0400
· Flag
Ellen, you may be on to something there. Given his ego and his position at Fox News, he’s certainly built up an ego that’s fueled a temper even bigger than the notorious “We’ll do it live!” clip. He’s still never thrown that stuff at Beck.
And it’s interesting to me that Beckel would say such things about O’Reilly who tries to come across more even-handed on the air, but not about Hannity. One has to wonder what Hannity is like off the air – is he really that angry and hateful toward anyone not on the far right, or is this just a pose for the viewers and listeners?
And it’s interesting to me that Beckel would say such things about O’Reilly who tries to come across more even-handed on the air, but not about Hannity. One has to wonder what Hannity is like off the air – is he really that angry and hateful toward anyone not on the far right, or is this just a pose for the viewers and listeners?
Kevin Koster commented on Kimberly Guilfoyle Declares Dr. Gosnell Guilty Of Homicide!
2013-05-03 17:53:28 -0400
· Flag
Regardless of the Duke case, the primary thrust of this special report is built on a false premise. The Gosnell case isn’t about the media ignoring an outrage. It’s about the fact that he was taking advantage of poor women who didn’t understand what their options were.
There was no “media blackout” of this story and nobody would have thought there was one until Fox News and AM radio pundits began creating that talking point. The story was well-covered in 2011, and particularly from the point of view that Maia describes. Several Pennsylvania officials lost their jobs over their failure to oversee what was going on. There is absolutely no evidence to say that Planned Parenthood approved of what Gosnell was doing or that they thought his procedures as we understand them now were acceptable. The only reason the right wing is trying to get away with that falsehood is to tar PP with the same brush. Further, what Gosnell was doing would not be considered appopriate or even sane in a typical abortion clinic.
I agree with Maia that the best result to come out of the Gosnell matter would be more education for people to know what their reproductive options are. It’s obvious that the women who Gosnell bilked had no understanding of this. I also agree with Maia that it would be better to have more real clinics available to poor women – not just for abortion but for general health in the first place. Had they had such options open to them, people like Gosnell would not be able to take advantage of them.
The point of this case isn’t to attack abortion, and it never was. The point of this case is that poor women have far less options open to them than women who are more affluent. That’s an obvious statement on its face, but in this case, it resulted in death. That’s the real issue that needed to be dealt with here, which was the point of the real coverage that was done on this case in 2011.
The right wing really doesn’t care about that point, and they’ve made that feeling very clear. They just want to make a case that Gosnell is somehow a typical abortion provider so they can scare and shame women away from having an abortion. It sounds like this special report is taking the opportunity to get away with calling women who have abortions murderers. Which should tell you how far over to the right Fox News has been tilting. It’s a shame that the pundits who’ve been pushing this story have so little understanding of the real issues here, and so little empathy for the women who have to deal with them.
There was no “media blackout” of this story and nobody would have thought there was one until Fox News and AM radio pundits began creating that talking point. The story was well-covered in 2011, and particularly from the point of view that Maia describes. Several Pennsylvania officials lost their jobs over their failure to oversee what was going on. There is absolutely no evidence to say that Planned Parenthood approved of what Gosnell was doing or that they thought his procedures as we understand them now were acceptable. The only reason the right wing is trying to get away with that falsehood is to tar PP with the same brush. Further, what Gosnell was doing would not be considered appopriate or even sane in a typical abortion clinic.
I agree with Maia that the best result to come out of the Gosnell matter would be more education for people to know what their reproductive options are. It’s obvious that the women who Gosnell bilked had no understanding of this. I also agree with Maia that it would be better to have more real clinics available to poor women – not just for abortion but for general health in the first place. Had they had such options open to them, people like Gosnell would not be able to take advantage of them.
The point of this case isn’t to attack abortion, and it never was. The point of this case is that poor women have far less options open to them than women who are more affluent. That’s an obvious statement on its face, but in this case, it resulted in death. That’s the real issue that needed to be dealt with here, which was the point of the real coverage that was done on this case in 2011.
The right wing really doesn’t care about that point, and they’ve made that feeling very clear. They just want to make a case that Gosnell is somehow a typical abortion provider so they can scare and shame women away from having an abortion. It sounds like this special report is taking the opportunity to get away with calling women who have abortions murderers. Which should tell you how far over to the right Fox News has been tilting. It’s a shame that the pundits who’ve been pushing this story have so little understanding of the real issues here, and so little empathy for the women who have to deal with them.
Kevin Koster commented on Bret Baier Panel Uses Gosnell Trial To Push Obama/Infanticide Link - Again!!!
2013-05-03 13:58:05 -0400
· Flag
I think that’s slayer…
Kevin Koster commented on Bill O'Reilly Pimps Bogus Lila Rose Video To Solicit Donations For 'Live Action' (And Defames Dr. Tiller, Again)
2013-05-01 20:20:57 -0400
· Flag
Tom Sea clearly has no idea what the reality is regarding Planned Parenthood and women’s health. His description of a late-term abortion comes from a right wing talking point that ignores why such a procedure would need to be performed. Seems clear he has no experience dealing with medical issues and is just trying to stir people up with some angry comments. Unless he were to provide some factual materials, there really is no way to respond to such a poster.
Kevin Koster commented on Accuse Obama Of Deliberately Hurting Americans? No Problem If You’re A Fox News Guest
2013-04-27 15:40:16 -0400
· Flag
I’m finding a tremendous irony in the discussion by Fox of the furloughs. Weren’t they saying two months ago that the sequester cuts wouldn’t make any difference? Weren’t they accusing the President of wildly overstating their impact? Hasn’t Fox News been regularly saying that the cuts are minimal and no big deal?
Granted, Fox News went on the warpath about White House Tours being curbed, never acknowledging that cuts had to come from somewhere. But they always pretended that the cuts just didn’t matter. Now that we see that there really are impacts from the cuts, isn’t it interesting to see the Fox pundits complaining about them? Shouldn’t they be admitting on camera that they misrepresented the situation? Wouldn’t an on-air apology be a better approach?
Granted, Fox News went on the warpath about White House Tours being curbed, never acknowledging that cuts had to come from somewhere. But they always pretended that the cuts just didn’t matter. Now that we see that there really are impacts from the cuts, isn’t it interesting to see the Fox pundits complaining about them? Shouldn’t they be admitting on camera that they misrepresented the situation? Wouldn’t an on-air apology be a better approach?
Kevin Koster commented on Christian Jihadist Todd Starnes Uses "Baby Killers" To Describe Planned Parenthood
2013-04-27 15:32:43 -0400
· Flag
This is just the latest attempt to smear Planned Parenthood, following the failed ideas of tying Kermit Gosnell to them and trying to gotcha their spokesperson at the Florida State House last month.
And regarding the Tsarnaevs’ proclivities, we could also mention that Tamerlan was a fan of Alex Jones. Does that mean that Alex Jones is a jihadist as well?
This is, at its core, Fox News’ attempt to stir up its base on an issue where they know they can’t really do anything. Undoubtedly, we’ll see further swipes like this over the next year as we brace for the midterms.
And regarding the Tsarnaevs’ proclivities, we could also mention that Tamerlan was a fan of Alex Jones. Does that mean that Alex Jones is a jihadist as well?
This is, at its core, Fox News’ attempt to stir up its base on an issue where they know they can’t really do anything. Undoubtedly, we’ll see further swipes like this over the next year as we brace for the midterms.