Kevin Koster commented on O’Reilly’s Threat To Mexico Revealed!
2014-05-29 22:01:58 -0400
· Flag
I’m sorry this guy is stuck dealing with the Mexican legal system, just I was sorry to see the last guy go through this problem after bringing firearms into a foreign country.
But I have to ask why Fox News isn’t addressing the other parts of this case. They note their opinions that he was apparently chained to his bed and supposedly was beaten by guards. We don’t know these to be facts, and frankly they sound like conjecture designed to garner support for him.
We do know that in his earlier hearings, he lied in court, telling the Mexican officials that he had never been to Tijuana before. This was of course quickly shown to be untrue by photos of him having been across the border at an earlier time. We also know that he attempted to escape his first prison and was then transferred. If his conditions were more restricted at the second prison, one could presume that this was due to his having tried to break out of the first one.
It sounds likely that the Mexican authorities will let him return to the US after these hearings are done, provided that the judge agrees to do so. He’ll likely be told not to come back any time soon. But this isn’t a matter of “victory” for Bill O’Reilly or even for this man. It’s a situation where he should never have been bringing guns across the border, and following that, he should never have lied in court and tried to break out of prison. None of these ideas tend to work out so well.
But I have to ask why Fox News isn’t addressing the other parts of this case. They note their opinions that he was apparently chained to his bed and supposedly was beaten by guards. We don’t know these to be facts, and frankly they sound like conjecture designed to garner support for him.
We do know that in his earlier hearings, he lied in court, telling the Mexican officials that he had never been to Tijuana before. This was of course quickly shown to be untrue by photos of him having been across the border at an earlier time. We also know that he attempted to escape his first prison and was then transferred. If his conditions were more restricted at the second prison, one could presume that this was due to his having tried to break out of the first one.
It sounds likely that the Mexican authorities will let him return to the US after these hearings are done, provided that the judge agrees to do so. He’ll likely be told not to come back any time soon. But this isn’t a matter of “victory” for Bill O’Reilly or even for this man. It’s a situation where he should never have been bringing guns across the border, and following that, he should never have lied in court and tried to break out of prison. None of these ideas tend to work out so well.
Kevin Koster commented on Bill O'Reilly: Elliot Rodger's Rampage Had Nothing To Do With Misogyny, White Privilege And Those Who Say So Are Liberal Loons!
2014-05-29 21:48:01 -0400
· Flag
I have a different point of view on this.
While I agree that you can see a connection between Elliot Rodger’s participation in misogynistic websites and his later behavior, including the planning and execution of his massacre, I wouldn’t say that the websites necessarily caused that behavior. I would say that part of Rodger’s acting out is demonstrated by his participation in these sites, which of course encouraged him in that point of view. I would agree that Rodger’s perspective is a chilling one – and it’s a nasty magnification of one of the more unpleasant areas of misogynism in our culture. At the same time, other cultures are also replete with misogynism without having the regular massacres we keep seeing here.
For me, it’s the same thing as Fox News trying to tie violence to video games like Grand Theft Auto, or to WWE matches on television, or even Bill O’Reilly’s unfortunate obsession with Beyoncé. Just because someone watches a violent movie does not mean that they will automatically commit a crime as a result of it. The argument, to me, is similar to the one presented in the Washington Post, where the reader is meant to think that Elliot Rodger had misogynistic thoughts because he watched too many Judd Apatow/Seth Rogen movies.
From what I’ve seen of his writing, etc, Rodger was an extremely disturbed kid who had routinely been rejected by his peers as a teenager. He recounts multiple instances of trying to ask someone out and being humiliated in the process. Now, most of us would just say “Grow up. Life isn’t fair.” and move on. In Rodger’s case, he clearly developed a deep seated thought that he was entitled to some girl being nicer to him, and when this didn’t happen, his resentment festered. And to be fair overall, we only have HIS version of what happened in these cases – for all we know, he acted so inappropriately that the people he was talking to found him repellent. In many of the cases, what he was doing was repellent even in his own descriptions.
The nature of Rodger’s approach to his killings wasn’t just something that he got from a website. He carefully planned this massacre. He knew that he would need two guns rather than one, because he never intended to be captured alive. He knew that he would actually need THREE guns rather than two because one might jam. He knew that he would need plenty of ammunition and the ability to quickly reload. He also knew that he couldn’t just shoot his roommates, since the sound of the gunfire would have alerted everyone in the area and gotten him arrested before he could get out the door. It also sounds like he wanted to cause more suffering to his roommates by the manner in which he murdered them. But he actually spent months THINKING ALL OF THIS THROUGH. That’s extremely chilling. The tone of his entire approach is made even creepier by the calmness with which he delivered his statements.
I do think you could make an argument that Rodger’s massacre is something out of Grand Theft Auto – only played out with real people, with Rodger not seeing any difference. I don’t know that he ever played these games, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he had. And, again, I don’t blame the games. Plenty of other people have played Grand Theft Auto without going on murder-suicide sprees.
The place where I think we can make some progress here is looking at the fact that Elliot Rodger was known to be disturbed, was supposedly on medication to help with his problems, and yet was still able to buy not one, not two, but THREE guns and plenty of ammo and clips to load them. And nobody thought for two seconds about this until after he’d gone on his rampage. I’ve heard the argument from the gun boosters about how they have the right to own a gun if they wish. That’s fine. How about the right of the public to walk down the street without living in fear of some heavily armed and crazed person randomly opening fire on us? The individual absolutely has rights in our society, and those rights must be protected. But we have collective rights as a society, and this is one that the right wing seems to ignore.
While I agree that you can see a connection between Elliot Rodger’s participation in misogynistic websites and his later behavior, including the planning and execution of his massacre, I wouldn’t say that the websites necessarily caused that behavior. I would say that part of Rodger’s acting out is demonstrated by his participation in these sites, which of course encouraged him in that point of view. I would agree that Rodger’s perspective is a chilling one – and it’s a nasty magnification of one of the more unpleasant areas of misogynism in our culture. At the same time, other cultures are also replete with misogynism without having the regular massacres we keep seeing here.
For me, it’s the same thing as Fox News trying to tie violence to video games like Grand Theft Auto, or to WWE matches on television, or even Bill O’Reilly’s unfortunate obsession with Beyoncé. Just because someone watches a violent movie does not mean that they will automatically commit a crime as a result of it. The argument, to me, is similar to the one presented in the Washington Post, where the reader is meant to think that Elliot Rodger had misogynistic thoughts because he watched too many Judd Apatow/Seth Rogen movies.
From what I’ve seen of his writing, etc, Rodger was an extremely disturbed kid who had routinely been rejected by his peers as a teenager. He recounts multiple instances of trying to ask someone out and being humiliated in the process. Now, most of us would just say “Grow up. Life isn’t fair.” and move on. In Rodger’s case, he clearly developed a deep seated thought that he was entitled to some girl being nicer to him, and when this didn’t happen, his resentment festered. And to be fair overall, we only have HIS version of what happened in these cases – for all we know, he acted so inappropriately that the people he was talking to found him repellent. In many of the cases, what he was doing was repellent even in his own descriptions.
The nature of Rodger’s approach to his killings wasn’t just something that he got from a website. He carefully planned this massacre. He knew that he would need two guns rather than one, because he never intended to be captured alive. He knew that he would actually need THREE guns rather than two because one might jam. He knew that he would need plenty of ammunition and the ability to quickly reload. He also knew that he couldn’t just shoot his roommates, since the sound of the gunfire would have alerted everyone in the area and gotten him arrested before he could get out the door. It also sounds like he wanted to cause more suffering to his roommates by the manner in which he murdered them. But he actually spent months THINKING ALL OF THIS THROUGH. That’s extremely chilling. The tone of his entire approach is made even creepier by the calmness with which he delivered his statements.
I do think you could make an argument that Rodger’s massacre is something out of Grand Theft Auto – only played out with real people, with Rodger not seeing any difference. I don’t know that he ever played these games, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he had. And, again, I don’t blame the games. Plenty of other people have played Grand Theft Auto without going on murder-suicide sprees.
The place where I think we can make some progress here is looking at the fact that Elliot Rodger was known to be disturbed, was supposedly on medication to help with his problems, and yet was still able to buy not one, not two, but THREE guns and plenty of ammo and clips to load them. And nobody thought for two seconds about this until after he’d gone on his rampage. I’ve heard the argument from the gun boosters about how they have the right to own a gun if they wish. That’s fine. How about the right of the public to walk down the street without living in fear of some heavily armed and crazed person randomly opening fire on us? The individual absolutely has rights in our society, and those rights must be protected. But we have collective rights as a society, and this is one that the right wing seems to ignore.
Kevin Koster commented on Fox Uses White House CIA Leak To Clear GOP In Valerie Plame Leak
2014-05-29 04:35:19 -0400
· Flag
A few things people should know in relation to this incident as relates to the Plame/Wilson affair.
Right off the bat, we should take a look at the full interview done with Valerie Plame on this subject. Ed Henry is being knowingly deceptive when he says she “went after the Obama Administration” and was putting pressure on them. Plame noted that what happened was, frankly, a stupid mistake, but was specific when she pointed out that this was not something done to target anyone. Her feeling is that right wingers are trying to draw, in her words, “a false equivalency” to what Cheney and Rove did to her and her husband.
What happened with the press release this weekend was an error, and has been acknowledged as such. We should keep in mind that this was not a covert agent but rather a person known to foreign intelligence in the area as a CIA official. I’m not sure if he was known as the station chief, but he certainly was known as CIA.
What happened with Valerie Plame, as she herself has reminded everyone today, was a deliberate act of retaliation, planned and executed by Karl Rove and Dick Cheney as punishment against Joe Wilson for having publicly criticized the Bush misstatements about some of the reasons given to attack Iraq. The intent was to have several administration people leak Plame’s cover as a NOC agent in their discussions with the media, thus exposing her and reminding Wilson what life could be like without any protection. According to multiple parties, the first person to actually talk to anyone in the media, Richard Armitage, didn’t actually know Plame was a NOC. But the others, including Rove and Cheney’s Chief of Staff, Scooter Libby, DID.
When the matter was investigated, Armitage immediately cooperated and publicly apologized once he realized what he’d done. Scooter Libby, on the other hand, blatantly lied and obfuscated in order to protect Cheney and Rove from exposure. When Patrick Fitzgerald realized Libby had stymied the whole investigation, he brought charges against Libby. The whole matter derailed into a prosecution of Libby for lying, and Libby wound up being convicted. But he’d served his purpose – he’d drawn the fire of the investigation onto himself and away from the bigger fish, and he’d shielded those fish from properly being fileted. Libby was sentenced to a jail term and a 250K fine. Before he served a day, Bush commuted his sentence. Libby seemed to disappear from public life after that point, although it was noted that his voting rights were restored a few years ago, in spite of his status as a convicted felon. Given how quiet things have been about Libby since then, I’d frankly venture a guess that he’s been a silent member of various right wing think tanks – functioning as a well-paid “consultant” – meaning that he doesn’t work as a practicing lawyer since he’s been disbarred, but he can effectively serve in the same capacity. He took a big hit for the guys above him and kept his mouth shut – it would make sense that they took care of him afterward. And I wouldn’t be surprised if that fine was effectively covered by friends in high places in the private sector…
Right off the bat, we should take a look at the full interview done with Valerie Plame on this subject. Ed Henry is being knowingly deceptive when he says she “went after the Obama Administration” and was putting pressure on them. Plame noted that what happened was, frankly, a stupid mistake, but was specific when she pointed out that this was not something done to target anyone. Her feeling is that right wingers are trying to draw, in her words, “a false equivalency” to what Cheney and Rove did to her and her husband.
What happened with the press release this weekend was an error, and has been acknowledged as such. We should keep in mind that this was not a covert agent but rather a person known to foreign intelligence in the area as a CIA official. I’m not sure if he was known as the station chief, but he certainly was known as CIA.
What happened with Valerie Plame, as she herself has reminded everyone today, was a deliberate act of retaliation, planned and executed by Karl Rove and Dick Cheney as punishment against Joe Wilson for having publicly criticized the Bush misstatements about some of the reasons given to attack Iraq. The intent was to have several administration people leak Plame’s cover as a NOC agent in their discussions with the media, thus exposing her and reminding Wilson what life could be like without any protection. According to multiple parties, the first person to actually talk to anyone in the media, Richard Armitage, didn’t actually know Plame was a NOC. But the others, including Rove and Cheney’s Chief of Staff, Scooter Libby, DID.
When the matter was investigated, Armitage immediately cooperated and publicly apologized once he realized what he’d done. Scooter Libby, on the other hand, blatantly lied and obfuscated in order to protect Cheney and Rove from exposure. When Patrick Fitzgerald realized Libby had stymied the whole investigation, he brought charges against Libby. The whole matter derailed into a prosecution of Libby for lying, and Libby wound up being convicted. But he’d served his purpose – he’d drawn the fire of the investigation onto himself and away from the bigger fish, and he’d shielded those fish from properly being fileted. Libby was sentenced to a jail term and a 250K fine. Before he served a day, Bush commuted his sentence. Libby seemed to disappear from public life after that point, although it was noted that his voting rights were restored a few years ago, in spite of his status as a convicted felon. Given how quiet things have been about Libby since then, I’d frankly venture a guess that he’s been a silent member of various right wing think tanks – functioning as a well-paid “consultant” – meaning that he doesn’t work as a practicing lawyer since he’s been disbarred, but he can effectively serve in the same capacity. He took a big hit for the guys above him and kept his mouth shut – it would make sense that they took care of him afterward. And I wouldn’t be surprised if that fine was effectively covered by friends in high places in the private sector…
Kevin Koster commented on Fox Guest Diagnoses UCSB Shooter’s ‘Homosexual Impulses’
2014-05-27 15:46:07 -0400
· Flag
This is a completely ridiculous red herring. I’ll give Ludwig props for departing the accepted right wing talking points and coming up with a whole new spin. All the other right wingers have been taking this time to defend gun rights, saying that Rodger killed an equal number of people with a knife as he did with his guns. Which is kooky enough as it is. The point is that he was trying to kill as many people as he could, and he carefully selected weapons that would allow him to accomplish that task.
Looking at his writings about what he was planning, it’s clear that this was an extremely disturbed and extremely intelligent person. He didn’t just grab a gun and run outside. He spent years planning revenge against all the other kids, and he had clearly worked out a system of how he intended to do this. There’s a twisted logic to the way he put this plot into motion – he made sure he had multiple weapons and plenty of ammo, just in case one of them jammed. He made sure that he had two working weapons so that he could kill himself more efficiently rather than go to jail. And he was extremely calm about how he went about this plan – which is probably the creepiest part of the whole thing.
The lesson of what happened here is that we live in a society where someone as disturbed and paranoid as he was can easily obtain and conceal the guns and ammunition that would allow him to commit mass murder without anyone stopping him. He even gave warnings in advance that he intended to do this. And nothing really happened until he finally went through on his threats.
What the right wing is once again fearing with this story is that people will say, as the angry father of one of Rodger’s victims has done, that we really have to do something about gun control. They DO NOT WANT gun control, and they’ve now repeatedly made clear that they’d rather see massacres like this one get repeated than do anything about it. This isn’t a matter of infringing on people’s 2nd Amendment rights. It’s a matter of society needing to take responsibility for this kind of danger within itself.
Looking at his writings about what he was planning, it’s clear that this was an extremely disturbed and extremely intelligent person. He didn’t just grab a gun and run outside. He spent years planning revenge against all the other kids, and he had clearly worked out a system of how he intended to do this. There’s a twisted logic to the way he put this plot into motion – he made sure he had multiple weapons and plenty of ammo, just in case one of them jammed. He made sure that he had two working weapons so that he could kill himself more efficiently rather than go to jail. And he was extremely calm about how he went about this plan – which is probably the creepiest part of the whole thing.
The lesson of what happened here is that we live in a society where someone as disturbed and paranoid as he was can easily obtain and conceal the guns and ammunition that would allow him to commit mass murder without anyone stopping him. He even gave warnings in advance that he intended to do this. And nothing really happened until he finally went through on his threats.
What the right wing is once again fearing with this story is that people will say, as the angry father of one of Rodger’s victims has done, that we really have to do something about gun control. They DO NOT WANT gun control, and they’ve now repeatedly made clear that they’d rather see massacres like this one get repeated than do anything about it. This isn’t a matter of infringing on people’s 2nd Amendment rights. It’s a matter of society needing to take responsibility for this kind of danger within itself.
Kevin Koster commented on D’Souza Pleads Guilty: Megyn Kelly All But Acquits Him Anyway
2014-05-27 15:34:58 -0400
· Flag
D’Souza broke the law and got busted. He can try to pass it off any way he likes, but that’s the short and simple version of the story. I’ve enjoyed how his people have tried to minimize his guilty plea, and to minimize the criminality of what he was doing.
But the fact is that he knowingly committed multiple FELONIES. According to prosecutors, they have audio testimony from his associates that he in fact intended to play out his trial like this if he was caught – to initially say “Not Guilty” and try to plead his case on Fox News, and then recant with a “Guilty” statement in court to try to get a reduced sentence. In one way, this strategy has worked. He will now only be sentenced for the single felony of giving 20K to the campaign of a GOP Senate candidate in 2012 via friends of his. (He told his friends to give her money up to the legal limit, and then reimbursed them. This is called “straw man” financing and it’s illegal for obvious reasons.)
I note that the judge in this case has chastised D’Souza in court for telling people this prosecution is somehow political retribution. And D’Souza has now admitted publicly in court that he broke the law and that he knows what he did was wrong.
This isn’t a small matter for D’Souza. He could be looking at 2 years in prison and hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. We’ll know in September, but making appearances like he’s been doing, proclaiming how the prosecution had no case and that sort of thing will only hurt him at that time. Frankly, I believe he’ll get a heavier fine and a year in prison. And Fox News will attack everyone it can when he goes in to serve his time.
By the way, if D’Souza is such an unimpeachably honest and courageous man, how do his supporters explain the whole mess where he had to step down as President of King’s College? You know, the situation where he was caught cheating on his wife with a married woman? (And that woman, Denise Joseph, was going to testify against him in court had he not pled out last week.) Where are the right wing pundits who screamed about Clinton’s infidelities when it comes to this material?
But the fact is that he knowingly committed multiple FELONIES. According to prosecutors, they have audio testimony from his associates that he in fact intended to play out his trial like this if he was caught – to initially say “Not Guilty” and try to plead his case on Fox News, and then recant with a “Guilty” statement in court to try to get a reduced sentence. In one way, this strategy has worked. He will now only be sentenced for the single felony of giving 20K to the campaign of a GOP Senate candidate in 2012 via friends of his. (He told his friends to give her money up to the legal limit, and then reimbursed them. This is called “straw man” financing and it’s illegal for obvious reasons.)
I note that the judge in this case has chastised D’Souza in court for telling people this prosecution is somehow political retribution. And D’Souza has now admitted publicly in court that he broke the law and that he knows what he did was wrong.
This isn’t a small matter for D’Souza. He could be looking at 2 years in prison and hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. We’ll know in September, but making appearances like he’s been doing, proclaiming how the prosecution had no case and that sort of thing will only hurt him at that time. Frankly, I believe he’ll get a heavier fine and a year in prison. And Fox News will attack everyone it can when he goes in to serve his time.
By the way, if D’Souza is such an unimpeachably honest and courageous man, how do his supporters explain the whole mess where he had to step down as President of King’s College? You know, the situation where he was caught cheating on his wife with a married woman? (And that woman, Denise Joseph, was going to testify against him in court had he not pled out last week.) Where are the right wing pundits who screamed about Clinton’s infidelities when it comes to this material?
Kevin Koster commented on Ben Carson Accuses Obama Administration Of Deliberately Depressing The Economy – To Keep People On Social Programs
2014-05-27 15:49:01 -0400
· Flag
Just because he’s a surgeon doesn’t mean that he knows much about politics. As his public statements have proven.
This isn’t a matter of conspiracies. It’s a matter of Carson trying to smear people he doesn’t like, as he has done in the past with this President. He doesn’t get to throw smears and untrue statements around, and then hide behind Fox News.
This isn’t a matter of conspiracies. It’s a matter of Carson trying to smear people he doesn’t like, as he has done in the past with this President. He doesn’t get to throw smears and untrue statements around, and then hide behind Fox News.
Kevin Koster commented on Got Hypocrisy? Mike Huckabee Thinks Gays Are Bigoted Bullies?
2014-05-20 15:35:06 -0400
· Flag
Does Huckabee think that nobody can remember what he said even yesterday? Does he really think that his audience is THAT addled?
What about Huckabee’s own support for boycotts, as we discussed here only ONE MONTH AGO? How about how Huckabee boycotted NPR because he was angry that Juan Williams had been let go for bigoted comments about Muslims? How about all the various boycotts and similar tactics taken by the right wingers at Fox News that Huckabee never discusses?
This sounds like a case of “Who do you believe? Me or Your Lying Eyes?”
What about Huckabee’s own support for boycotts, as we discussed here only ONE MONTH AGO? How about how Huckabee boycotted NPR because he was angry that Juan Williams had been let go for bigoted comments about Muslims? How about all the various boycotts and similar tactics taken by the right wingers at Fox News that Huckabee never discusses?
This sounds like a case of “Who do you believe? Me or Your Lying Eyes?”
Kevin Koster commented on Dana Loesch: I’m A Hate Mongering B**** For Christ!
2014-05-19 15:46:32 -0400
· Flag
The point with these guys is that they’re trying to cloak their bigotry behind their religion. If every Christian believed what these guys do, then they might have a basis for their actions. But that isn’t the case by a long shot.
I agree with Ehrlich that these guys are really just self-promoters trying to get attention and celebrity, while hiding behind what they say are religious principles. They have espoused hatred toward others, which should go against their Christian learnings, but they’re carefully avoiding having that discussion. And now they have people like Dana Loesch lining up to attack anyone who appropriately criticizes them for their behavior.
I agree with Ehrlich that these guys are really just self-promoters trying to get attention and celebrity, while hiding behind what they say are religious principles. They have espoused hatred toward others, which should go against their Christian learnings, but they’re carefully avoiding having that discussion. And now they have people like Dana Loesch lining up to attack anyone who appropriately criticizes them for their behavior.
Kevin Koster commented on Lanny Davis Demolishes Fox News’ Benghazi Conspiracy Theories
2014-05-15 20:02:24 -0400
· Flag
Frankly, Hannity and Hayes had no answers for the facts that Davis presented them, and Hannity decided to try to bully Davis off the screen, which backfired.
This is all “asked and answered” nonsense. My favorite part is the implication that this somehow turned the election in 2012. As though nobody was discussing this very issue on Fox News and in multiple debates in front of the public. If this was the “masterstroke” of the Obama Campaign in 2012, then how do they explain that the Obama Campaign was openly discussing this matter over the two months leading up to the election. Fox News’ take on this assumes that somehow the whole issue was hidden from the public and that’s blatantly false. Which means that Fox News actually thinks that its viewers can’t even remember what happened less than two years ago, let alone longer. Do they really believe that everyone’s memory is that short-term?
This is all “asked and answered” nonsense. My favorite part is the implication that this somehow turned the election in 2012. As though nobody was discussing this very issue on Fox News and in multiple debates in front of the public. If this was the “masterstroke” of the Obama Campaign in 2012, then how do they explain that the Obama Campaign was openly discussing this matter over the two months leading up to the election. Fox News’ take on this assumes that somehow the whole issue was hidden from the public and that’s blatantly false. Which means that Fox News actually thinks that its viewers can’t even remember what happened less than two years ago, let alone longer. Do they really believe that everyone’s memory is that short-term?
Kevin Koster commented on Fox Helps Karl Rove Promote ‘Brain Damage’ Conspiracy Theory About Hillary Clinton’s Health – And Pretend Otherwise
2014-05-15 04:56:23 -0400
· Flag
I’ve been fascinated to see Fox News falling over themselves trying to justify Rove’s behavior here.
On the one hand, you have some commentators criticizing Rove’s “strategy”, saying that it exposes a real issue but perhaps may also change the debate away from all the other “scandals” the right would prefer to foment.
On the other hand, you have some commentators like Hannity and Bolling who are openly applauding Rove. Bolling went so far as to call him a “genius” and “brilliant” for this incredible approach.
Never mind the fact that Rove’s comments were way off base – she wasn’t in the hospital for “30 days”, she wore glasses consistent with what people wear for a few days after a concussion, and of course, she was accused of having faked the whole thing at the time to avoid testifying about Benghazi.
Even if you take out the whole issue of Rove’s fact inadequacy, that still leaves the simple question of why he would do it. Why would Rove make this kind of statement, much less double down on it when challenged?
The simple answer was out of anger and mean-spiritedness. Rove has never been a friend of the Clintons, and he just couldn’t resist taking a cheap shot when the opportunity presented itself. He can explain it all he wants in the most reasoned tones, but there’s no careful thinking behind this. He did it because he dislikes Hillary Clinton and he resents the fact that she may well become President in his lifetime. All the rest is just dancing around the truth.
On the one hand, you have some commentators criticizing Rove’s “strategy”, saying that it exposes a real issue but perhaps may also change the debate away from all the other “scandals” the right would prefer to foment.
On the other hand, you have some commentators like Hannity and Bolling who are openly applauding Rove. Bolling went so far as to call him a “genius” and “brilliant” for this incredible approach.
Never mind the fact that Rove’s comments were way off base – she wasn’t in the hospital for “30 days”, she wore glasses consistent with what people wear for a few days after a concussion, and of course, she was accused of having faked the whole thing at the time to avoid testifying about Benghazi.
Even if you take out the whole issue of Rove’s fact inadequacy, that still leaves the simple question of why he would do it. Why would Rove make this kind of statement, much less double down on it when challenged?
The simple answer was out of anger and mean-spiritedness. Rove has never been a friend of the Clintons, and he just couldn’t resist taking a cheap shot when the opportunity presented itself. He can explain it all he wants in the most reasoned tones, but there’s no careful thinking behind this. He did it because he dislikes Hillary Clinton and he resents the fact that she may well become President in his lifetime. All the rest is just dancing around the truth.
Kevin Koster commented on Fox’s Not Very Touching Support For Monica Lewinsky
2014-05-07 16:19:38 -0400
· Flag
The Laura Ingraham spot was particularly vicious, even for Ingraham. Crowley’s contribution was fairly noxious as well.
First Ingraham tries to get in the dig about this somehow being sexual harassment rather than an affair.
Crowley’s contribution was nasty from the start. I appreciate Ellen noting that Crowley instantly wanted to get into the Willey material, even knowing that the woman has no credibility. For Crowley, it gave her a quick cheap shot right out of the gate. As usual for her, Crowley warmed into her subject and began throwing bombs at both Hillary and Bill Clinton, portraying them as careerists. She even got in a cheap shot at Jessica Ehrlich, saying that somehow the Democrats were always defending bad men like Clinton and Teddy Kennedy (natch – she got the Kennedy shot in too).
I find it interesting that Ingraham wanted to work in a discussion of Juanita Broaddrick, a person who repeatedly changed her story and whose credibility has been questioned everywhere but on the far right and the far left. People who really hate the Clintons tend to believe her, since her story portrays Bill Clinton as a monster and Hillary as an enabler. Ingraham of course had to play Broaddrick’s story as somehow credible, with “corroborating evidence”, even though that’s not actually the case.
I also find it interesting that while Ehrlich was discussing Clinton, the Fox News gang ran clips of Hillary designed to make her look goofy or foolish.
Ingraham also threw cheap shots in essentially accusing feminists of somehow not caring whether Bill Clinton attacked women – something that actual feminists could school Ingraham about if she ever dared to have one on a show with her. It’s telling that Crowley couldn’t resist a smug grin when hearing Ingraham do this. The tone of Ingraham’s “questions” was fairly insulting not only to Ehrlich but to women in general.
And throughout the whole segment, we’re meant to believe that Laura Ingraham really wants to stand up for women’s rights, when she has spent decades opposing and ridiculing women who have made different life choices than she has.
Looking at this segment, I think that Ehrlich was trying to stay on point and not get distracted into the weeds by the various nasty comments that Ingraham and Crowley were saying. But I would have preferred to hear her say to each of them: “I reject the premise of your statements. You’re presenting questionable opinions as facts and you’re repeatedly interrupting me. Don’t you think that’s an ironic position, given that you’re trying to distract attention from the very real opposition the GOP and the right wing have presented to real women and their rights?”
First Ingraham tries to get in the dig about this somehow being sexual harassment rather than an affair.
Crowley’s contribution was nasty from the start. I appreciate Ellen noting that Crowley instantly wanted to get into the Willey material, even knowing that the woman has no credibility. For Crowley, it gave her a quick cheap shot right out of the gate. As usual for her, Crowley warmed into her subject and began throwing bombs at both Hillary and Bill Clinton, portraying them as careerists. She even got in a cheap shot at Jessica Ehrlich, saying that somehow the Democrats were always defending bad men like Clinton and Teddy Kennedy (natch – she got the Kennedy shot in too).
I find it interesting that Ingraham wanted to work in a discussion of Juanita Broaddrick, a person who repeatedly changed her story and whose credibility has been questioned everywhere but on the far right and the far left. People who really hate the Clintons tend to believe her, since her story portrays Bill Clinton as a monster and Hillary as an enabler. Ingraham of course had to play Broaddrick’s story as somehow credible, with “corroborating evidence”, even though that’s not actually the case.
I also find it interesting that while Ehrlich was discussing Clinton, the Fox News gang ran clips of Hillary designed to make her look goofy or foolish.
Ingraham also threw cheap shots in essentially accusing feminists of somehow not caring whether Bill Clinton attacked women – something that actual feminists could school Ingraham about if she ever dared to have one on a show with her. It’s telling that Crowley couldn’t resist a smug grin when hearing Ingraham do this. The tone of Ingraham’s “questions” was fairly insulting not only to Ehrlich but to women in general.
And throughout the whole segment, we’re meant to believe that Laura Ingraham really wants to stand up for women’s rights, when she has spent decades opposing and ridiculing women who have made different life choices than she has.
Looking at this segment, I think that Ehrlich was trying to stay on point and not get distracted into the weeds by the various nasty comments that Ingraham and Crowley were saying. But I would have preferred to hear her say to each of them: “I reject the premise of your statements. You’re presenting questionable opinions as facts and you’re repeatedly interrupting me. Don’t you think that’s an ironic position, given that you’re trying to distract attention from the very real opposition the GOP and the right wing have presented to real women and their rights?”
Kevin Koster commented on Jon Stewart Scorches Fox News Over Benghazi
2014-05-07 15:55:32 -0400
· Flag
Bemused, thank you for the kind words.
Tom, it took me all of five minutes to do a Google search on the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the “longwarjournal” blog that they post online. Thomas Joscelyn and Bill Roggio are the guys who are at the top of both ideas. The FDD has been roundly criticized for trying to push military solutions at all possible junctures, and for pushing inaccurate information – such as Roggio saying that terrorists known to have been killed in drone strikes were actually somehow alive.
As for the interview with Tommy Vietor, I’m assuming you mean the attempted “gotcha!” by Bret Baer, wherein Vietor was asked to go back through the whole play-by-play of questions that have been asked and answered. He very clearly told Baer that the Rhodes email is a standard campaign email, one that should be recognizable to any political reporter, and that it’s clear that Rhodes is referring to the regionwide protests in the one bit of language that Fox News has sadly chosen to emphasize. When Baer tried to bait Vietor with the bit about “Where was the president if he wasn’t in the Situation Room?”, Vietor responded that he honestly didn’t know what room in the White House the President was in at every minute. He also responded that asking minutiae about this stuff was difficult to respond to, given that we’re talking about things that happened two years ago. Fox News of course decided to focus just on the line “Dude, that was two years ago.” To my mind, Fox News and Bret Baer owe Vietor a humble apology.
BTW it’s begun to occur to me that the GOP must have another reason to run around yelling “Benghazi! Benghazi!” again. Could it be that they’re seeing polling numbers they don’t like, and that perhaps they’re trying to rally their base for the midterms?
Tom, it took me all of five minutes to do a Google search on the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the “longwarjournal” blog that they post online. Thomas Joscelyn and Bill Roggio are the guys who are at the top of both ideas. The FDD has been roundly criticized for trying to push military solutions at all possible junctures, and for pushing inaccurate information – such as Roggio saying that terrorists known to have been killed in drone strikes were actually somehow alive.
As for the interview with Tommy Vietor, I’m assuming you mean the attempted “gotcha!” by Bret Baer, wherein Vietor was asked to go back through the whole play-by-play of questions that have been asked and answered. He very clearly told Baer that the Rhodes email is a standard campaign email, one that should be recognizable to any political reporter, and that it’s clear that Rhodes is referring to the regionwide protests in the one bit of language that Fox News has sadly chosen to emphasize. When Baer tried to bait Vietor with the bit about “Where was the president if he wasn’t in the Situation Room?”, Vietor responded that he honestly didn’t know what room in the White House the President was in at every minute. He also responded that asking minutiae about this stuff was difficult to respond to, given that we’re talking about things that happened two years ago. Fox News of course decided to focus just on the line “Dude, that was two years ago.” To my mind, Fox News and Bret Baer owe Vietor a humble apology.
BTW it’s begun to occur to me that the GOP must have another reason to run around yelling “Benghazi! Benghazi!” again. Could it be that they’re seeing polling numbers they don’t like, and that perhaps they’re trying to rally their base for the midterms?
Kevin Koster commented on Watch How Fox Drags Benghazi Into White House Correspondents Dinner Review
2014-05-05 20:36:40 -0400
· Flag
What you’re hearing in all these different shows is a consistent drumbeat of Roger Ailes’ “Line of the Day”. He’s clearly hoping that he can smear both President Obama and Hillary Clinton with Take 17 1/2 of the same nonsensical “questions about Benghazi”. Here we go again with the same speculations about what dark intentions Obama and Clinton must have had in fall 2012, etc, etc. And it’s not like we haven’t had, say, 17 1/2 prior times to refute all this stuff. It’s as though Ailes thinks the American public will simply forget the last group of answers if they’ve been out of the headlines for the past two weeks.
The other part of it, which has now been voiced on pretty much every Fox News program, is Ailes’ caution to GOP candidates: Every pundit and anchor is “just asking” the question of whether it’s a good idea for the GOP to focus on Benghazi again when they could be discussing “the economy and jobs”. Or maybe that’s just a coincidence…
The reality is that if the GOP were to focus on the actual economic issues, they’d have to explain why they refused to extend unemployment benefits, why they voted against an increase in the minimum wage, why they have repeatedly done whatever they could to gum up the works, why GOP governors have tried to cripple the ACA by refusing to join the exchanges, etc. (And that last will be rectified as various GOP governors get voted out and Dems get in, such as in Florida. With each of those cases, you’ll see another flood of exchanges opening and people getting coverage. And with each further state where this happens, the GOP dream of somehow instantaneously repealing the ACA becomes more and more of a figment.)
The Fox News reaction to the Correspondents’ Dinner reads as what it really is – a tantrum over the fact that they hate the fact that President Obama is indeed the President. All the rest is just dressing.
The other part of it, which has now been voiced on pretty much every Fox News program, is Ailes’ caution to GOP candidates: Every pundit and anchor is “just asking” the question of whether it’s a good idea for the GOP to focus on Benghazi again when they could be discussing “the economy and jobs”. Or maybe that’s just a coincidence…
The reality is that if the GOP were to focus on the actual economic issues, they’d have to explain why they refused to extend unemployment benefits, why they voted against an increase in the minimum wage, why they have repeatedly done whatever they could to gum up the works, why GOP governors have tried to cripple the ACA by refusing to join the exchanges, etc. (And that last will be rectified as various GOP governors get voted out and Dems get in, such as in Florida. With each of those cases, you’ll see another flood of exchanges opening and people getting coverage. And with each further state where this happens, the GOP dream of somehow instantaneously repealing the ACA becomes more and more of a figment.)
The Fox News reaction to the Correspondents’ Dinner reads as what it really is – a tantrum over the fact that they hate the fact that President Obama is indeed the President. All the rest is just dressing.
Kevin Koster commented on Sean Hannity’s Despicable Benghazi Rhetoric
2014-05-02 21:04:32 -0400
· Flag
Ellen, I do hope that you’ll be able to put together a mash-up video sometime of all the Hannity freakouts we’ve seen on this kind of thing.
Specifically, how many times have Sean Hannity and Jay Sekulow been caught on camera openly musing about the impeachment to come, or the impending doom hanging over the Obama Administration over this or that non-scandal? I’m willing to bet you could already fill at least five minutes with this stuff – none of which has proven to be anything by Hannity and Sekulow’s hot air.
I’ll give Davis points for trying to stand part of his ground and forcing Hannity to allow him to finish his statement, but Sekulow still tried to cut him off and also tried to see if he could distract Davis from his point by shouting nonsense at him. I agree with you that Davis should have opened with “I reject the entire premise of your opening, and I ask you how you would have reacted to someone making comments like that about the George W. Bush presidency.” At the same time, Davis appeared to be focused on a single point – that the Benghazi language in the memo is directly pasted from CIA talking points – and I think he felt he should stay on that single point or he wouldn’t get anywhere.
Specifically, how many times have Sean Hannity and Jay Sekulow been caught on camera openly musing about the impeachment to come, or the impending doom hanging over the Obama Administration over this or that non-scandal? I’m willing to bet you could already fill at least five minutes with this stuff – none of which has proven to be anything by Hannity and Sekulow’s hot air.
I’ll give Davis points for trying to stand part of his ground and forcing Hannity to allow him to finish his statement, but Sekulow still tried to cut him off and also tried to see if he could distract Davis from his point by shouting nonsense at him. I agree with you that Davis should have opened with “I reject the entire premise of your opening, and I ask you how you would have reacted to someone making comments like that about the George W. Bush presidency.” At the same time, Davis appeared to be focused on a single point – that the Benghazi language in the memo is directly pasted from CIA talking points – and I think he felt he should stay on that single point or he wouldn’t get anywhere.
Kevin Koster commented on Fox’s Ed Henry Weasels Away From Benghazi Question
2014-05-06 21:55:51 -0400
· Flag
reese, I agree with you that right wingers definitely feel that Jimmy Carter eroded the prestige of the presidency. Not everyone does, however. As I pointed out, the whole issue of his election was that he WASN’T corrupt, which was exactly the stigma of the Nixon Administration and then Ford for pardoning Nixon.
As for Reagan, he was certainly popular during his first years in office, but there was a LOT of opposition to him both abroad and at home. He was viewed as dangerously misguided, particularly when he blew up the Gorbachev summit so he could keep going with the Star Wars idea. And in his second term, the sheer weight of all the scandals led to him finishing office in a situation where he was dangerously close to being impeached himself. The only thing that saved him from that fate, frankly, was the circus of congressional testimony and then a deliberate closing of the ranks around him by his inner circle. So Ollie North was convicted, but he was willing to take the hit for the man above him. Same idea as what happened almost 20 years later with Scooter Libby over the misdeeds of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. Looking at Reagan today, the right wing loves him and his legacy. Americans who either weren’t alive or aware when he was president think of him as a nice, folksy guy. Everyone else looks at his legacy and shakes their head.
As for the reason why Single Payer didn’t go through, you must know that the GOP in Congress gummed that one up. Frankly, the Dems didn’t have the intestinal fortitude to take on the insurance companies in that way, so they settled for the much weaker “Public Option”. Except that the GOP made so much kerfuffle over it that President Obama made a show of dropping it – to placate the GOP. The GOP responded as they have to every one of Obama’s offerings – they said they wanted the entire bill to go back to the drawing board, as a method of killing it, just like they had done when Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton had tried this in the mid-90s. Not sure what you mean about payoffs for Nancy Pelosi, but we do know that the Dems had to practically beg many of their own members to vote for the ACA since the GOP was in lockstep trying to kill it. (It’s an interesting irony – the GOP likes to project that “the left” is monolithic when in fact that statement really tends to apply to the right wing. Liberals tend to waffle back and forth, and those farther on the left are wildly divided even among themselves.) The Dems have always been a mix of liberal politicians and more conservative ones. It’s no surprise that Nancy Pelosi had to make promises to the more conservative ones in order to get their votes on this bill. But that’s not the same thing as all the graft that went on under Ronald Reagan, which I’m sure you know. Nancy Pelosi promising a House member she’d help him get funding passed for a project he wanted in his state is a bit different from the numbers of Reagan and George W. Bush Administration members taking money directly from major companies or immediately getting cushy positions there after jumping out of their government jobs. That’s a payoff, and there’s a big, big difference.
As for Reagan, he was certainly popular during his first years in office, but there was a LOT of opposition to him both abroad and at home. He was viewed as dangerously misguided, particularly when he blew up the Gorbachev summit so he could keep going with the Star Wars idea. And in his second term, the sheer weight of all the scandals led to him finishing office in a situation where he was dangerously close to being impeached himself. The only thing that saved him from that fate, frankly, was the circus of congressional testimony and then a deliberate closing of the ranks around him by his inner circle. So Ollie North was convicted, but he was willing to take the hit for the man above him. Same idea as what happened almost 20 years later with Scooter Libby over the misdeeds of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. Looking at Reagan today, the right wing loves him and his legacy. Americans who either weren’t alive or aware when he was president think of him as a nice, folksy guy. Everyone else looks at his legacy and shakes their head.
As for the reason why Single Payer didn’t go through, you must know that the GOP in Congress gummed that one up. Frankly, the Dems didn’t have the intestinal fortitude to take on the insurance companies in that way, so they settled for the much weaker “Public Option”. Except that the GOP made so much kerfuffle over it that President Obama made a show of dropping it – to placate the GOP. The GOP responded as they have to every one of Obama’s offerings – they said they wanted the entire bill to go back to the drawing board, as a method of killing it, just like they had done when Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton had tried this in the mid-90s. Not sure what you mean about payoffs for Nancy Pelosi, but we do know that the Dems had to practically beg many of their own members to vote for the ACA since the GOP was in lockstep trying to kill it. (It’s an interesting irony – the GOP likes to project that “the left” is monolithic when in fact that statement really tends to apply to the right wing. Liberals tend to waffle back and forth, and those farther on the left are wildly divided even among themselves.) The Dems have always been a mix of liberal politicians and more conservative ones. It’s no surprise that Nancy Pelosi had to make promises to the more conservative ones in order to get their votes on this bill. But that’s not the same thing as all the graft that went on under Ronald Reagan, which I’m sure you know. Nancy Pelosi promising a House member she’d help him get funding passed for a project he wanted in his state is a bit different from the numbers of Reagan and George W. Bush Administration members taking money directly from major companies or immediately getting cushy positions there after jumping out of their government jobs. That’s a payoff, and there’s a big, big difference.
Kevin Koster commented on Fox Nation Wants To Make Sure You Know That Donald Sterling Is A Democrat
2014-04-29 13:19:15 -0400
· Flag
Tom is not seeing that the point about Sterling’s party affiliation is that it’s irrelevant, and Fox News got it completely wrong in their attempt to throw mud. He’s a right wing guy and he gives money to right wing politicians, whether they are GOP or Democrat. He votes GOP. Fox News and Limbaugh thought they had a “gotcha!” moment when they found that he had donated to Dem campaigns. But they didn’t take the minute to do the research and see that he was actually a GOP voter. Just shows that they weren’t interested in the actual facts – only how they could try to use this situation for a quick smear job.
Tom is also saying some very odd things for a Democrat who works in education. Among other things, his assertions about income inequality aren’t researched and sound like they’re being echoed from right wing websites. Further, the whole paragraph about these issues is loaded with spelling and grammatical errors that make it extremely difficult to read or understand.
I’m sure there are plenty of Democrats who have issues with President Obama, but what I’m trying to decipher from Tom’s remarks makes very little sense. He seems to want President Obama to walk a picket line about the ACA. Why? He seems to be upset that the ACA has had hiccups in starting up, as any government program has. (And I’d argue that things would have gone a lot smoother had President Obama and the Dems kept the public option, but that’s an argument from four years ago. We’ll get Single Payer, but it will be another few years before the country can accept it.) He seems upset about jobs being outsourced overseas – I agree that this is a problem. I don’t know that President Obama himself can do anything about companies choosing to do that. I know that he has repeatedly urged US companies to keep their work here in the US and to hire US workers. If those companies are repeatedly choosing to lay off their US workers and run offshore, I don’t know how this is President Obama’s fault. He certainly isn’t encouraging them to do so, as was the case with George W. Bush’s cabinet.
Regarding Tom’s issue about undocumented workers and unscrupulous contractors, that’s a local issue that can be addressed by whatever state the contractor works. If someone is deliberately breaking the law to underbid another man’s contract, that can be dealt with at the local level. Not sure how this is a Presidential issue that needs to be fixed from the White House – we already have laws on the books to cover this.
Tom’s final paragraph indicates that he seems to enjoy the more conservative programs President Obama has maintained during his administration. I’m not sure what his point is with “I think it’s great that he can take out american terrorist with drones”. Besides the obvious syntax error, I have no idea what he means here. I’m also not certain what he means by saying that President Obama has somehow “donated billions of dollars” to “jack up the rates” of coal plants. This assertion is both incoherent and bizarre. He mentions a right wing meme about President Obama giving some appointments to people who supported his campaigns, but forgets to mention that all presidents do this – particularly George W. Bush just a few short years ago. He makes a bizarre statement about written tests being given to police and firefighters and then goes on to talk about the TSA and how he wants low income families to own their own homes. Frankly, I’m completely puzzled by his entire response. Of course, that assumes that he was being serious with these statements.
Tom is also saying some very odd things for a Democrat who works in education. Among other things, his assertions about income inequality aren’t researched and sound like they’re being echoed from right wing websites. Further, the whole paragraph about these issues is loaded with spelling and grammatical errors that make it extremely difficult to read or understand.
I’m sure there are plenty of Democrats who have issues with President Obama, but what I’m trying to decipher from Tom’s remarks makes very little sense. He seems to want President Obama to walk a picket line about the ACA. Why? He seems to be upset that the ACA has had hiccups in starting up, as any government program has. (And I’d argue that things would have gone a lot smoother had President Obama and the Dems kept the public option, but that’s an argument from four years ago. We’ll get Single Payer, but it will be another few years before the country can accept it.) He seems upset about jobs being outsourced overseas – I agree that this is a problem. I don’t know that President Obama himself can do anything about companies choosing to do that. I know that he has repeatedly urged US companies to keep their work here in the US and to hire US workers. If those companies are repeatedly choosing to lay off their US workers and run offshore, I don’t know how this is President Obama’s fault. He certainly isn’t encouraging them to do so, as was the case with George W. Bush’s cabinet.
Regarding Tom’s issue about undocumented workers and unscrupulous contractors, that’s a local issue that can be addressed by whatever state the contractor works. If someone is deliberately breaking the law to underbid another man’s contract, that can be dealt with at the local level. Not sure how this is a Presidential issue that needs to be fixed from the White House – we already have laws on the books to cover this.
Tom’s final paragraph indicates that he seems to enjoy the more conservative programs President Obama has maintained during his administration. I’m not sure what his point is with “I think it’s great that he can take out american terrorist with drones”. Besides the obvious syntax error, I have no idea what he means here. I’m also not certain what he means by saying that President Obama has somehow “donated billions of dollars” to “jack up the rates” of coal plants. This assertion is both incoherent and bizarre. He mentions a right wing meme about President Obama giving some appointments to people who supported his campaigns, but forgets to mention that all presidents do this – particularly George W. Bush just a few short years ago. He makes a bizarre statement about written tests being given to police and firefighters and then goes on to talk about the TSA and how he wants low income families to own their own homes. Frankly, I’m completely puzzled by his entire response. Of course, that assumes that he was being serious with these statements.
Kevin Koster commented on O’Reilly To African American Democrat: Cliven Bundy And You Would Be Friends
2014-04-26 01:43:28 -0400
· Flag
I think O’Reilly was simply trying to find a way out for several of the Fox News personalities who have expressed allegiance with Bundy but didn’t jump all the way into the pool with him. I don’t think this idea works at all, and Bundy is absolutely not a victim. (I suppose you could say he’s a victim of his own ignorance and racism, but that’s a whole different argument.)
The more interesting part of O’Reilly’s Talking Points tonight was that I believe he completely pilloried Sean Hannity, possibly even worse than Colbert and Jon Stewart. O’Reilly’s recounting of the horrors of slavery, stacked next to his discussion that “not everybody” at Fox News was making Bundy their pal, sounds like a pretty direct shot across the bow at Hannity. Given that the men have no love lost between them, I’m sure this will make for some wonderfully frosty times at the building in New York.
The more interesting part of O’Reilly’s Talking Points tonight was that I believe he completely pilloried Sean Hannity, possibly even worse than Colbert and Jon Stewart. O’Reilly’s recounting of the horrors of slavery, stacked next to his discussion that “not everybody” at Fox News was making Bundy their pal, sounds like a pretty direct shot across the bow at Hannity. Given that the men have no love lost between them, I’m sure this will make for some wonderfully frosty times at the building in New York.