Kevin Koster commented on Hannity Politicizes Colorado School Shooting To Blame Liberals
2013-12-17 12:04:19 -0500
· Flag
This was a bizarre segment.
Strangest part was Coulter presenting herself as an expert on marijuana use, citing one study from yesterday as though this were a clinical fact accepted by everyone. Note to Coulter – regardless of what anyone thinks about people who smoke marijuana, it does not automatically link up with psychotic episodes. There’s a reason that there are medical marijuana dispensaries, and that multiple states have moved to legalize it. And it isn’t because those states are full of psychotic people, so far as anyone can tell.
Interesting that Coulter boldly asserted that every single shooter, particularly presidential assassins, have been left wing. As she put it “they are always, ALWAYS left wing”. Really? Let’s take a look at that. (Keeping in mind that in each of these cases, we’re dealing with a disturbed individual who should never have been able to get access to the weapons that they would then use for their murders.)
Jared Lee Loughner – Described by one fellow student as not political of either stripe and another fellow student as radically liberal, his actual statements and postings line up with multiple far right conspiracy theorists, particularly David Wynn Miller, who notes that Loughner appears to have adopted and quoted Miller’s right wing material.
James Holmes – Not indicated in either direction politically. Seems to have been a fairly smart person with extreme socialization issues. His snap seems to have been personal and not fueled by the Alex Joneses of the world.
Adam Lanza – Not indicated in either direction politically. Seems to have been a fairly smart person with a case of Aspergers. Was clearly obsessed with mass shootings, as he’d compiled a massive spreadsheet of previous incidents. Happened to live in a house with his mother, who had a large number of legally purchased guns, which he used to murder first her and then the people at the school.
Columbine – Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold – Not indicated in either direction politically. Shooters seem to have been motivated by delusion and fantasies of violent revenge on other students. Bullying has been discussed prominently on this one, particularly since these two guys were on a hunt for the jocks of the school and made comments indicating they were out for revenge against them.
2006 Amish School Shooting – Charles Roberts – Not indicated politically. Shooter seems to have been a child molester who was acting out in a different manner than he had previously done.
2008 Northern Illinois University Shooting – Steven Kazmierczak – Not indicated politically, although he expressed sympathy toward Hamas. Shooter seems to have been responding to bullying, and modeled his behavior off previous shootings like Columbine.
2007 Virginia Tech – Seung-Hui Cho – Not indicated politically. Shooter talks in his “manifesto” about revenge against the wealthy, but if you drill down past the surface, you find he was dealing with all kinds of mental health issues, aggravated by bullying. And the bullying was in part due to his manifestation of symptoms like mutism. His killing spree seems to have been, like Columbine, fueled by a fantasy of violent revenge against other students.
2011 Norway Attacks – Anders Breivik – Openly right wing. Breivik is clear about his philosophy and the reasons he planned his murders. Has expressed antipathy toward Islamic people, immigrants and those he considers “Cultural Marxists”.
2013 Arapahoe Shooting – Karl Pierson – Some indication of critical thinking about GOP on his postings. Closer look at his history shows him to be a contrarian who liked debating other students, but who got himself thrown off the debate team for taking things too far. Not sure if we know enough to give him any real political basis. His motive for shooting seems to have been revenge against the teacher who threw him off the debate team.
Presidential Attacks:
Andrew Jackson – first assaulted by Robert Randolph after Jackson had him removed from the Navy for embezzlement. Later attacked by Richard Lawrence, who misfired two pistols in his attempt. Lawrence was deemed insane – he said he was shooting Jackson for causing him to lose his job, and that killing Jackson would cause money to be “more plenty”. He also said he thought he was Richard III of English infamy, but one wonders how far gone he was by the time he said that…
Abraham Lincoln – Repeatedly threatened and attacked during the Civil War. Finally assassinated by John Wilkes Booth. Booth was a Confederate sympathizer and supporter of slavery. I believe that would not put him on the left in anyone’s book.
James Garfield – Killed by Charles Guiteau months after he took office. Guiteau was delusional, thinking himself instrumental to the 1880 GOP because he wrote a speech that he retailored to favor Garfield. He was frustrated that the Garfield people wouldn’t name him as an ambassador, and that they were apparently telling him to leave them alone. Upon shooting Garfield, Guiteau declared himself a Stalwart GOP member (referencing the debate going on in the GOP at the time about gold) and affirmed his support for Chester Arthur.
William McKinley – Killed by Leon Czolgosz, a declared anarchist. This one would fall under a more left-wing umbrella, to be fair.
We could go through the whole list of Presidential attackers of the 20th century, but there are a LOT of them and they do not conform to Coulter’s view that they are “always, ALWAYS left wing”. Just about all of them were, frankly, wingnuts; either out to glorify themselves or to satisfy some delusion.
We should also note that Coulter’s chilling dismissal of the death threats made against President Obama is not accurate. She’s conveniently forgetting the really scary material that Fox Nation has happily promulgated over the past 6 years, and which Ellen has helpfully archived for the record.
The point of all this is to note that Coulter and Hannity’s entire basis of their discussion was completely inaccurate, which blows apart her arguments. And to agree with Ellen – Hannity is simply using the latest gun tragedy in a school as an excuse to say nasty things about left wingers. One would think that Hannity would refrain from doing this, particularly while Claire Davis is fighting for her life. The sight of Hannity trying to score cheap political points at this time, particularly given that we’ve shown he has no idea what he’s talking about, is frankly disgusting.
In a better world, Hannity would take a few minutes this evening and humbly apologize – not just to his audience but to the family of Claire Davis.
Strangest part was Coulter presenting herself as an expert on marijuana use, citing one study from yesterday as though this were a clinical fact accepted by everyone. Note to Coulter – regardless of what anyone thinks about people who smoke marijuana, it does not automatically link up with psychotic episodes. There’s a reason that there are medical marijuana dispensaries, and that multiple states have moved to legalize it. And it isn’t because those states are full of psychotic people, so far as anyone can tell.
Interesting that Coulter boldly asserted that every single shooter, particularly presidential assassins, have been left wing. As she put it “they are always, ALWAYS left wing”. Really? Let’s take a look at that. (Keeping in mind that in each of these cases, we’re dealing with a disturbed individual who should never have been able to get access to the weapons that they would then use for their murders.)
Jared Lee Loughner – Described by one fellow student as not political of either stripe and another fellow student as radically liberal, his actual statements and postings line up with multiple far right conspiracy theorists, particularly David Wynn Miller, who notes that Loughner appears to have adopted and quoted Miller’s right wing material.
James Holmes – Not indicated in either direction politically. Seems to have been a fairly smart person with extreme socialization issues. His snap seems to have been personal and not fueled by the Alex Joneses of the world.
Adam Lanza – Not indicated in either direction politically. Seems to have been a fairly smart person with a case of Aspergers. Was clearly obsessed with mass shootings, as he’d compiled a massive spreadsheet of previous incidents. Happened to live in a house with his mother, who had a large number of legally purchased guns, which he used to murder first her and then the people at the school.
Columbine – Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold – Not indicated in either direction politically. Shooters seem to have been motivated by delusion and fantasies of violent revenge on other students. Bullying has been discussed prominently on this one, particularly since these two guys were on a hunt for the jocks of the school and made comments indicating they were out for revenge against them.
2006 Amish School Shooting – Charles Roberts – Not indicated politically. Shooter seems to have been a child molester who was acting out in a different manner than he had previously done.
2008 Northern Illinois University Shooting – Steven Kazmierczak – Not indicated politically, although he expressed sympathy toward Hamas. Shooter seems to have been responding to bullying, and modeled his behavior off previous shootings like Columbine.
2007 Virginia Tech – Seung-Hui Cho – Not indicated politically. Shooter talks in his “manifesto” about revenge against the wealthy, but if you drill down past the surface, you find he was dealing with all kinds of mental health issues, aggravated by bullying. And the bullying was in part due to his manifestation of symptoms like mutism. His killing spree seems to have been, like Columbine, fueled by a fantasy of violent revenge against other students.
2011 Norway Attacks – Anders Breivik – Openly right wing. Breivik is clear about his philosophy and the reasons he planned his murders. Has expressed antipathy toward Islamic people, immigrants and those he considers “Cultural Marxists”.
2013 Arapahoe Shooting – Karl Pierson – Some indication of critical thinking about GOP on his postings. Closer look at his history shows him to be a contrarian who liked debating other students, but who got himself thrown off the debate team for taking things too far. Not sure if we know enough to give him any real political basis. His motive for shooting seems to have been revenge against the teacher who threw him off the debate team.
Presidential Attacks:
Andrew Jackson – first assaulted by Robert Randolph after Jackson had him removed from the Navy for embezzlement. Later attacked by Richard Lawrence, who misfired two pistols in his attempt. Lawrence was deemed insane – he said he was shooting Jackson for causing him to lose his job, and that killing Jackson would cause money to be “more plenty”. He also said he thought he was Richard III of English infamy, but one wonders how far gone he was by the time he said that…
Abraham Lincoln – Repeatedly threatened and attacked during the Civil War. Finally assassinated by John Wilkes Booth. Booth was a Confederate sympathizer and supporter of slavery. I believe that would not put him on the left in anyone’s book.
James Garfield – Killed by Charles Guiteau months after he took office. Guiteau was delusional, thinking himself instrumental to the 1880 GOP because he wrote a speech that he retailored to favor Garfield. He was frustrated that the Garfield people wouldn’t name him as an ambassador, and that they were apparently telling him to leave them alone. Upon shooting Garfield, Guiteau declared himself a Stalwart GOP member (referencing the debate going on in the GOP at the time about gold) and affirmed his support for Chester Arthur.
William McKinley – Killed by Leon Czolgosz, a declared anarchist. This one would fall under a more left-wing umbrella, to be fair.
We could go through the whole list of Presidential attackers of the 20th century, but there are a LOT of them and they do not conform to Coulter’s view that they are “always, ALWAYS left wing”. Just about all of them were, frankly, wingnuts; either out to glorify themselves or to satisfy some delusion.
We should also note that Coulter’s chilling dismissal of the death threats made against President Obama is not accurate. She’s conveniently forgetting the really scary material that Fox Nation has happily promulgated over the past 6 years, and which Ellen has helpfully archived for the record.
The point of all this is to note that Coulter and Hannity’s entire basis of their discussion was completely inaccurate, which blows apart her arguments. And to agree with Ellen – Hannity is simply using the latest gun tragedy in a school as an excuse to say nasty things about left wingers. One would think that Hannity would refrain from doing this, particularly while Claire Davis is fighting for her life. The sight of Hannity trying to score cheap political points at this time, particularly given that we’ve shown he has no idea what he’s talking about, is frankly disgusting.
In a better world, Hannity would take a few minutes this evening and humbly apologize – not just to his audience but to the family of Claire Davis.
Kevin Koster commented on Bill O’Reilly: Megyn Kelly Was Right, Santa Was White (But Not Jesus) So Get Over It, African Americans!
2013-12-17 10:20:12 -0500
· Flag
I would tend to agree that O’Reilly was simply trying to jump into the controversy to get himself some extra attention here. It wasn’t relevant to anything he would normally discuss – he just wanted to get his own facetime on it.
And yes, it is a double or triple down on the nonsense.
Best reaction I’ve seen has been Jon Stewart, noting Kelly’s non-apology and her insistence that her original comments were just a joke. And then he runs her clip again where you can plainly see she’s NOT joking. She was quite serious, and actually sounded defensive and angry. Not as angry as she is now about it, but still angry.
And yes, it is a double or triple down on the nonsense.
Best reaction I’ve seen has been Jon Stewart, noting Kelly’s non-apology and her insistence that her original comments were just a joke. And then he runs her clip again where you can plainly see she’s NOT joking. She was quite serious, and actually sounded defensive and angry. Not as angry as she is now about it, but still angry.
Kevin Koster commented on Megyn Kelly Plays The Racial Victim Over Her ‘White Santa’ And ‘White Jesus’ Comments
2013-12-14 14:39:10 -0500
· Flag
It’s important to note that Kelly was caught on camera lying in a bold faced manner here. In the original quote from her show, she wasn’t just joking about Santa being white for the kids. She was quite serious. Her point was to ridicule the black activist questioning the racial identity of a white icon like Santa Clause. Her intent was to make clear that there was no real debate about the notion of Santa being a Caucasian man. Which of course flew in the face of the column she was discussing – an essay about the difficulties faced by African Americans during a predominantly Caucasian holiday season. There’s a reason that Kwanzaa became a holiday, and it frankly had to do with the idea of Caucasians happily excluding other ethnicities from their reindeer games, so to speak.
Kelly’s desperate attempt to deny and evade the truth of her behavior seems to get most of its vitriol from her concern that her Fox News persona is nowhere near as balanced as she herself may in fact be. In her personal life, she actually seems to be a fair amount to the left of her on camera persona. Her vicious on-air confrontation and slam on Mike Gallagher for questioning her maternity leave is solid evidence of this. But she knows that her on-air persona at Fox News needs to be as far right as possible, if she is to maintain a prime time opinion program on that network.
Her contention of equally challenging both perspectives in a debate on her program is instantly demolished by the multiple clips preserved on this site of her conduct in the new Prime Time show. The reality is that she regularly gives a deferential ear to the more extreme right wing positions espoused by her guests of that nature, just as she regularly yells at, cuts off and dismisses her more centrist guests.
If she’s trying to portray herself as a journalist, she’s sadly mistaken. But on the other hand, that’s been the pose of many Fox News personalities. The closest one they have to a journalist is Shepard Smith. All the rest are pundits at one level or another, repeating the opinions and positions of Roger Ailes. Kelly herself has made her living as just such a pundit. She should embrace it, not hide from it.
Kelly’s desperate attempt to deny and evade the truth of her behavior seems to get most of its vitriol from her concern that her Fox News persona is nowhere near as balanced as she herself may in fact be. In her personal life, she actually seems to be a fair amount to the left of her on camera persona. Her vicious on-air confrontation and slam on Mike Gallagher for questioning her maternity leave is solid evidence of this. But she knows that her on-air persona at Fox News needs to be as far right as possible, if she is to maintain a prime time opinion program on that network.
Her contention of equally challenging both perspectives in a debate on her program is instantly demolished by the multiple clips preserved on this site of her conduct in the new Prime Time show. The reality is that she regularly gives a deferential ear to the more extreme right wing positions espoused by her guests of that nature, just as she regularly yells at, cuts off and dismisses her more centrist guests.
If she’s trying to portray herself as a journalist, she’s sadly mistaken. But on the other hand, that’s been the pose of many Fox News personalities. The closest one they have to a journalist is Shepard Smith. All the rest are pundits at one level or another, repeating the opinions and positions of Roger Ailes. Kelly herself has made her living as just such a pundit. She should embrace it, not hide from it.
Kevin Koster commented on Hannity ‘Asks’ About Obama’s Handshake With Castro: Is President Obama More Willing To Give His Time To Our Enemies Than Our Allies?
2013-12-12 16:45:35 -0500
· Flag
By the way, this distraction is nearly as silly as the whole State Department “booze scandal” from last week. This was the one where Fox News tried to play up the liquor expenditures of the State Dept at the end of fiscal 2012.
The fun part was where they tried to imply that this was done in connection with their shutdown – playing that they quickly bought 180K of alcohol right before the government shut down. And they tried to imply that the Obama Administration is spending massive amounts on alcohol, given that the total annual budget allotment went from 118K in 2008 to 400K n 2013. Both of those observations were silly. First, the State Dept was clearly just spending its budgeted allotment on schedule, regardless of the GOP’s timeline of when they wanted to throw a tantrum and shut government services down. Second, any number comparison between 2008 and 2012 has to include the massive recession of 2008/2009 when comparing expenditures like this.
Then there was the cluck-clucking that somehow the State Dept shouldn’t have any budge for liquor in the first place. Which is fine, if you want all our embassies to have all their functions be completely alcohol free. Because this isn’t about State Dept people drinking on the job. This is about over 100 embassies around the world holding diplomatic events, dinners, parties, etc. These events involve wine or cocktails. New Years celebrations involve champagne, etc. And frankly, when you do the math, the State Dept’s budget for this isn’t extravagant at all. It’s a reasonable budgetary figure for a reasonable situation. Unless we’re planning on re-instituting Prohibition again (and that worked out so well the last time…), this is just another nonsensical rationale to once again attack President Obama.
The fun part was where they tried to imply that this was done in connection with their shutdown – playing that they quickly bought 180K of alcohol right before the government shut down. And they tried to imply that the Obama Administration is spending massive amounts on alcohol, given that the total annual budget allotment went from 118K in 2008 to 400K n 2013. Both of those observations were silly. First, the State Dept was clearly just spending its budgeted allotment on schedule, regardless of the GOP’s timeline of when they wanted to throw a tantrum and shut government services down. Second, any number comparison between 2008 and 2012 has to include the massive recession of 2008/2009 when comparing expenditures like this.
Then there was the cluck-clucking that somehow the State Dept shouldn’t have any budge for liquor in the first place. Which is fine, if you want all our embassies to have all their functions be completely alcohol free. Because this isn’t about State Dept people drinking on the job. This is about over 100 embassies around the world holding diplomatic events, dinners, parties, etc. These events involve wine or cocktails. New Years celebrations involve champagne, etc. And frankly, when you do the math, the State Dept’s budget for this isn’t extravagant at all. It’s a reasonable budgetary figure for a reasonable situation. Unless we’re planning on re-instituting Prohibition again (and that worked out so well the last time…), this is just another nonsensical rationale to once again attack President Obama.
Kevin Koster commented on Shannon Bream Still Pimping Right Wing, Anti-Choice Smear Campaign Against Obama Judicial Nominee
2013-11-26 13:23:13 -0500
· Flag
The linked article at rightwingwatch is extremely informative. It points out a simple truth: the GOP have tried to completely change their stripes on this issue, based solely on the identity of the President making the nominations.
When George W. Bush was proposing a whole slew of inappropriate nominees to multiple positions, the same group “Judicial Crisis” had a different name – the “Judicial Confirmation Network”, whose purpose was to make sure that all of Bush’s nominees got a “fair hearing”. (read – “make sure they all got confirmed no matter what the Democrats said”)
The difference during the Bush Administration was that the Dems were not filibustering EVERYBODY. They let Bush have most of what he wanted. They let him put both John Roberts and Samuel Alito onto the High Court, even allowing him to make Roberts the Chief Justice without any prior High Court judicial experience. (He had been a clerk for Rehnquist, but that’s really not the same thing as being a justice, is it?) They allowed Bush to appoint a lot of really unfortunate people into his cabinet, with Russ Feingold among others, noting that Bush had the right to a cabinet of his choosing. The Dems were heavily criticized by the left at the time for not blocking everyone, with Alexander Cockburn impishly posing the question: “What if he nominates David Dukes?” (The critics always left out the rest of Feingold’s statement – which clarified that the president has the right to the cabinet of his choice barring any serious concerns about the nominee’s qualifications or serious ethical lapses…)
But in general, Bush got most everything he wanted. His proposals mostly went through the Congress. It was only a small number of appointees or judges where the Dems showed any backbone – and that was only when the situation was egregious. John Bolton was blocked by the Dems because he had openly shown total hostility toward the U.N., and Bush had to get him in a recess appointment. And a few judges were so far out of the mainstream that the Dems simply couldn’t stomach them, including Janice Rogers Brown, Miguel Estrada, William Pryor, Charles Pickering, Priscilla Owen and a few others. The GOP always forgets that all the others got in. They don’t mention that when discussing the filbusters of a small number of justices on principle. And they don’t mention that at the time, they were the ones threatening the “nuclear option”. They also don’t mention that the Dems agreed to the “Gang of 14” idea, and to allow a few of those objectionable judges through in order to keep the peace. The key to remember, which the GOP and Fox News would prefer that you didn’t, is that the Dems only objected as a group to a small minority of Bush’s appointments, with very clear reasoning stated for each time they took that action.
The situation under President Obama has been completely different. The GOP pledged to oppose EVERYONE he nominated, no matter who the person was or what the position was. They have challenged everybody he put up there, even when the appointees were Republicans! They have offered blanket opposition to Obama judicial nominations, even before they even knew who the nominees were. The general rule in effect seemed to be that they simply didn’t want any Obama appointments to the court or various agencies to get through. By taking this approach, they have crippled multiple courts and bureaus, since they don’t have enough people in place to do their work. Which gets you backlogged courts, or bureaus that cannot do their work. One could argue that this is exactly what the libertarians would want – a government that is completely stymied. I can’t imagine who else would think this was a good idea. But it’s clear that the GOP has been hoping to gum up the works as much as possisble, say NO to everything that President Obama does, and make sure that he is unable to pass anything or appoint anyone wherever possible. Were they to have their way, they would be able to hold out until the next GOP President gets in, at which point they would of course say that the judicial appointments are an urgent business given how backlogged the courts are, etc, and thus push to get a slew of right wing judges in there.
There’s no question that the Dems have changed their position on the “nuclear option”, and that both sides have played politics with these appointments. The difference has been that the Dems didn’t play at this level of extreme obstructionism. The GOP have made it their mission to block everything they could, and Fox News has played that idea out along with them. The usual play here is for the GOP to blindly object to whatever President Obama proposes, or whoever he nominates, after which the right wing media, like Fox News, or Rush Limbaugh, then backs them up and offers a talking point to give them cover. A major reason to support this website is that at least we have a record of the hypocritical actions taken by Fox News and others, and when they try to deny that the record exists, it can easily be referenced.
When George W. Bush was proposing a whole slew of inappropriate nominees to multiple positions, the same group “Judicial Crisis” had a different name – the “Judicial Confirmation Network”, whose purpose was to make sure that all of Bush’s nominees got a “fair hearing”. (read – “make sure they all got confirmed no matter what the Democrats said”)
The difference during the Bush Administration was that the Dems were not filibustering EVERYBODY. They let Bush have most of what he wanted. They let him put both John Roberts and Samuel Alito onto the High Court, even allowing him to make Roberts the Chief Justice without any prior High Court judicial experience. (He had been a clerk for Rehnquist, but that’s really not the same thing as being a justice, is it?) They allowed Bush to appoint a lot of really unfortunate people into his cabinet, with Russ Feingold among others, noting that Bush had the right to a cabinet of his choosing. The Dems were heavily criticized by the left at the time for not blocking everyone, with Alexander Cockburn impishly posing the question: “What if he nominates David Dukes?” (The critics always left out the rest of Feingold’s statement – which clarified that the president has the right to the cabinet of his choice barring any serious concerns about the nominee’s qualifications or serious ethical lapses…)
But in general, Bush got most everything he wanted. His proposals mostly went through the Congress. It was only a small number of appointees or judges where the Dems showed any backbone – and that was only when the situation was egregious. John Bolton was blocked by the Dems because he had openly shown total hostility toward the U.N., and Bush had to get him in a recess appointment. And a few judges were so far out of the mainstream that the Dems simply couldn’t stomach them, including Janice Rogers Brown, Miguel Estrada, William Pryor, Charles Pickering, Priscilla Owen and a few others. The GOP always forgets that all the others got in. They don’t mention that when discussing the filbusters of a small number of justices on principle. And they don’t mention that at the time, they were the ones threatening the “nuclear option”. They also don’t mention that the Dems agreed to the “Gang of 14” idea, and to allow a few of those objectionable judges through in order to keep the peace. The key to remember, which the GOP and Fox News would prefer that you didn’t, is that the Dems only objected as a group to a small minority of Bush’s appointments, with very clear reasoning stated for each time they took that action.
The situation under President Obama has been completely different. The GOP pledged to oppose EVERYONE he nominated, no matter who the person was or what the position was. They have challenged everybody he put up there, even when the appointees were Republicans! They have offered blanket opposition to Obama judicial nominations, even before they even knew who the nominees were. The general rule in effect seemed to be that they simply didn’t want any Obama appointments to the court or various agencies to get through. By taking this approach, they have crippled multiple courts and bureaus, since they don’t have enough people in place to do their work. Which gets you backlogged courts, or bureaus that cannot do their work. One could argue that this is exactly what the libertarians would want – a government that is completely stymied. I can’t imagine who else would think this was a good idea. But it’s clear that the GOP has been hoping to gum up the works as much as possisble, say NO to everything that President Obama does, and make sure that he is unable to pass anything or appoint anyone wherever possible. Were they to have their way, they would be able to hold out until the next GOP President gets in, at which point they would of course say that the judicial appointments are an urgent business given how backlogged the courts are, etc, and thus push to get a slew of right wing judges in there.
There’s no question that the Dems have changed their position on the “nuclear option”, and that both sides have played politics with these appointments. The difference has been that the Dems didn’t play at this level of extreme obstructionism. The GOP have made it their mission to block everything they could, and Fox News has played that idea out along with them. The usual play here is for the GOP to blindly object to whatever President Obama proposes, or whoever he nominates, after which the right wing media, like Fox News, or Rush Limbaugh, then backs them up and offers a talking point to give them cover. A major reason to support this website is that at least we have a record of the hypocritical actions taken by Fox News and others, and when they try to deny that the record exists, it can easily be referenced.
Kevin Koster commented on Megyn Kelly Tries To Shame Humanist Involved In Church/State Issue
2013-11-22 20:10:44 -0500
· Flag
This is actually a classic Laura Ingraham tactic. She concocted the entire segment as a way to bash through her pre-set hypothesis. The only reason for the guest to be there was to be mocked and ridiculed on the air. Any attempt by him to correct her statements was simply talked over, or laughed at. It’s pretty nasty work when it happens.
Kevin Koster commented on Fox News War On Oprah: Racial Prejudice Against President Obama Edition
2013-11-20 13:20:08 -0500
· Flag
“Marv Goble” is invited to provide evidence of even a SINGLE protestor holding up a “Kill Bush” sign. Just a single one. I saw plenty of images of protestors saying to IMPEACH Bush, which was merited. But not to do violence to the man. On the other hand, as has been exhaustively documented here, Fox Nation is full of posts of people threatening violence against the current President and using every racial slur in the book.
As far as insults thrown at Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann, I haven’t heard them being threatened with bodily harm in the manner that right wingers have gone after President Obama. I would agree that there have been multiple cases of outrageous insults against them. But not threats of violence.
The right wing does not get to rewrite history just because right wingers are embarrassed by their current behavior.
As far as insults thrown at Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann, I haven’t heard them being threatened with bodily harm in the manner that right wingers have gone after President Obama. I would agree that there have been multiple cases of outrageous insults against them. But not threats of violence.
The right wing does not get to rewrite history just because right wingers are embarrassed by their current behavior.
Kevin Koster commented on Megyn Kelly Distorts Ezekiel Emanuel’s ObamaCare Remarks To Push Her Impeachment Meme
2013-11-17 12:34:41 -0500
· Flag
The simplest conclusion I can draw is that Kelly knows she lost the debate, particularly after she lost her temper repeatedly and began shouting incoherently. Dr. Emanuel very patiently tried to explain where she was going wrong, but she apparently preferred to continue yelling at him rather than listen.
And while I wish guests of Fox News could have some recourse to protect them, the sad fact is that a whole lot of them could sue the network for selectively editing their remarks. And that’s not to mention the people who have been defamed in videos aired by Fox without correction, such as the people James O’Keefe and Andrew Breitbart have smeared. Or the union guy in Michigan that Steven Crowder assaulted before editing the video to make it look like the guy was assaulting Crowder.
And while I wish guests of Fox News could have some recourse to protect them, the sad fact is that a whole lot of them could sue the network for selectively editing their remarks. And that’s not to mention the people who have been defamed in videos aired by Fox without correction, such as the people James O’Keefe and Andrew Breitbart have smeared. Or the union guy in Michigan that Steven Crowder assaulted before editing the video to make it look like the guy was assaulting Crowder.
Kevin Koster commented on Jon Stewart Skewers Fox News’ ‘Medical A-Team’ Bias
2013-11-14 09:16:38 -0500
· Flag
Stewart is of course correct. Those guys aren’t on Fox News for medical expertise. They’re on Fox News to attack President Obama and to provide any talking points they can to support those attacks.
As Bill O’Reilly admitted multiple times during the shutdown, the goal now is to find any possible way to attack the ACA and the Dems and hopefully make some hay out of that in 2014. Except that this assumes that the American people are completely blind to what the GOP has been doing for the past five years. I wouldn’t make that assumption. Of course, the GOP could just shut the government down again during 2014 and see if that helps their chances in the midterms. But I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes after they attempt such an approach…
As Bill O’Reilly admitted multiple times during the shutdown, the goal now is to find any possible way to attack the ACA and the Dems and hopefully make some hay out of that in 2014. Except that this assumes that the American people are completely blind to what the GOP has been doing for the past five years. I wouldn’t make that assumption. Of course, the GOP could just shut the government down again during 2014 and see if that helps their chances in the midterms. But I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes after they attempt such an approach…
Kevin Koster commented on Ezekiel Emanuel Calls Out Megyn Kelly’s ObamaCare Bias And B.S.
2013-11-14 09:07:11 -0500
· Flag
I believe Cecelia is demonstrating the advanced skill of ironic humor.
Megyn Kelly did not need to shout at anyone. She was simply being rude to a guest on her show. And she was doing so because he knew what he was talking about and was easily disproving her opinions. Yelling a debunked talking point does not suddenly make it true again, but Kelly seemed oblivious to that idea.
As for what the ACA is or isn’t, it’s quite clear that the GOP and Fox News desperately WANTS it to fail. Just as they desperately wanted President Obama to fail, as Rush Limbaugh angrily announced before Obama was even inaugurated in 2009. But that doesn’t mean that it’s already failed. It just means that the GOP wishes it would.
It’s interesting that Cecelia mentions the “Washington DC bubble” needing to “get a clue”. I would agree at a certain level – Fox News certainly has misled many viewers as to what is happening in the country. Such as when Fox News and right wing media insisted that MItt Romney was going to win the 2012 election in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
As for the “plan” from Ted Cruz, it’s clear that he doesn’t have one. He just wants to attack the ACA again. Now, will he try to get his friends to shut the government down again in January and February? During an election year? If he really thinks that’s a good idea, he should try it and see what happens to the GOP in 2014. Fox News likes to cite lower approval numbers for President Obama, but forgets to note that the GOP House has MUCH lower numbers in the same polls. Such as getting down to 9 percent. Which tells you that Americans may be upset with the way their government is dysfunctional these days, but they’re a lot clearer about where the problem is than Fox News is willing to admit. Fox News also doesn’t want to acknowledge that given the polarization of the country (which they’ve eagerly fomented), it’s unlikely you’ll see any President get much above a 50 percent approval rating other than for a few extreme moments, like the day after an election. Otherwise, you have a 50/50 split, and if some of the Dems are irritated at the moment, you’ll see the approval rating dip. Of course, the current spell is nothing like the cratering of George W. Bush’s approval rating as the economy tanked under his “leadership”. But Fox News didn’t want to discuss that when it happened in 2008. So why is the number important now? Is it because they just don’t like this particular President?
Megyn Kelly did not need to shout at anyone. She was simply being rude to a guest on her show. And she was doing so because he knew what he was talking about and was easily disproving her opinions. Yelling a debunked talking point does not suddenly make it true again, but Kelly seemed oblivious to that idea.
As for what the ACA is or isn’t, it’s quite clear that the GOP and Fox News desperately WANTS it to fail. Just as they desperately wanted President Obama to fail, as Rush Limbaugh angrily announced before Obama was even inaugurated in 2009. But that doesn’t mean that it’s already failed. It just means that the GOP wishes it would.
It’s interesting that Cecelia mentions the “Washington DC bubble” needing to “get a clue”. I would agree at a certain level – Fox News certainly has misled many viewers as to what is happening in the country. Such as when Fox News and right wing media insisted that MItt Romney was going to win the 2012 election in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
As for the “plan” from Ted Cruz, it’s clear that he doesn’t have one. He just wants to attack the ACA again. Now, will he try to get his friends to shut the government down again in January and February? During an election year? If he really thinks that’s a good idea, he should try it and see what happens to the GOP in 2014. Fox News likes to cite lower approval numbers for President Obama, but forgets to note that the GOP House has MUCH lower numbers in the same polls. Such as getting down to 9 percent. Which tells you that Americans may be upset with the way their government is dysfunctional these days, but they’re a lot clearer about where the problem is than Fox News is willing to admit. Fox News also doesn’t want to acknowledge that given the polarization of the country (which they’ve eagerly fomented), it’s unlikely you’ll see any President get much above a 50 percent approval rating other than for a few extreme moments, like the day after an election. Otherwise, you have a 50/50 split, and if some of the Dems are irritated at the moment, you’ll see the approval rating dip. Of course, the current spell is nothing like the cratering of George W. Bush’s approval rating as the economy tanked under his “leadership”. But Fox News didn’t want to discuss that when it happened in 2008. So why is the number important now? Is it because they just don’t like this particular President?
Kevin Koster commented on Fox Forgets ‘Accountability’ When It Comes To James O’Keefe’s ObamaCare Navigators Video
2013-12-19 15:54:00 -0500
· Flag
Phil, I’m not sure why you’re trying to defend Peter Schiff’s prank any more than you would defend James O’Keefe’s pranks. These are actions taken not out of an intent to help others, but out of an intention to embarrass people on camera. Schiff isn’t honestly presenting himself to these people or offering them a real question. He’s posing as a non-existent outfit, in an attempt to ridicule people with whom he disagrees. And along the way, he’s harassing and embarrassing people who shop at Walmart. Given his actions, it’s fairly clear this stems from what looks like a deep-seated anger, and meanness.
BTW your idea that Walmart will have to sharply raise their prices if they pay their employees a decent wag, is not completely accurate. Walmart enjoys massive profits each year, while many of its employees earn so little that they need to make use of public assistance. You can’t possibly be defending that as a sustainable or defensible business practice. There are many ways Walmart could adjust to paying a proper wage to its employees. Walmart could accept a slightly smaller profit margin, something closer to the reality of the values they are providing. They could perhaps not reward their executives with quite as generous bonus packages. They could raise their prices, but at a much smaller amount than you’re insisting would be necessary, and people would accept that.
Your premise – that Walmart would have no choice but to skyrocket their prices and punish everyone – is simply not the case.
And none of this changes the fact that James O’Keefe’s videos are misleading and unreliable. And they’re just as mean-spirited as the nasty stunt Peter Schiff pulled here.
BTW your idea that Walmart will have to sharply raise their prices if they pay their employees a decent wag, is not completely accurate. Walmart enjoys massive profits each year, while many of its employees earn so little that they need to make use of public assistance. You can’t possibly be defending that as a sustainable or defensible business practice. There are many ways Walmart could adjust to paying a proper wage to its employees. Walmart could accept a slightly smaller profit margin, something closer to the reality of the values they are providing. They could perhaps not reward their executives with quite as generous bonus packages. They could raise their prices, but at a much smaller amount than you’re insisting would be necessary, and people would accept that.
Your premise – that Walmart would have no choice but to skyrocket their prices and punish everyone – is simply not the case.
And none of this changes the fact that James O’Keefe’s videos are misleading and unreliable. And they’re just as mean-spirited as the nasty stunt Peter Schiff pulled here.
Kevin Koster commented on Fox News Sunday's Phony ObamaCare Victim
2013-11-11 22:08:50 -0500
· Flag
Frankly, it’s now clear that Fox News is combining two ideas at once.
First, they’re following the GOP playbook of trying to loudly announce any possible consumers who don’t like the ACA as a way of smearing both it and the Dems for 2014 and 2016. This was Bill O’Reilly’s “sage” advice during the shutdown – let the ACA go into effect (obstructing it at every turn) and then scream about all the problems so that the Dems lose the Senate in the next election, after which the GOP would then immediately repeal the ACA. This seems to be most of what we’ve been seeing on Kelly’s program over the past two weeks without a pause.
And the second idea is the same one the GOP and Fox News have been following since they lost the 2012 election: A massive temper tantrum.
First, they’re following the GOP playbook of trying to loudly announce any possible consumers who don’t like the ACA as a way of smearing both it and the Dems for 2014 and 2016. This was Bill O’Reilly’s “sage” advice during the shutdown – let the ACA go into effect (obstructing it at every turn) and then scream about all the problems so that the Dems lose the Senate in the next election, after which the GOP would then immediately repeal the ACA. This seems to be most of what we’ve been seeing on Kelly’s program over the past two weeks without a pause.
And the second idea is the same one the GOP and Fox News have been following since they lost the 2012 election: A massive temper tantrum.
Kevin Koster commented on Mindreader Bill O’Reilly 'Reveals' President Obama’s Secret Plan To Destroy Your Health Insurance
2013-11-10 13:48:54 -0500
· Flag
This is simply one more example of O’Reilly disingenuously doing exactly what he says he isn’t doing. He’s trying to play as though he were the temperate, calm, reasoned voice just trying to get everyone on both sides to compromise.
Except that O’Reilly has never been offering a compromise – he’s been hacking away at the ACA and at Obama since the beginning. The point of his “reasonable” alternative would be to effectively kill the ACA by pushing it off for a year to make it possible for a new GOP majority to repeal it assuming that all goes according to the Fox News playbook. Best case for them, the GOP wins big in the midterms as they normally do and then they can instantly repeal the whole thing and override any veto from President Obama. But that won’t really work if the ACA continues to bring people into the exchanges over the next year. And O’Reilly isn’t thinking particularly realistically. The more likely scenario next year is that the GOP loses ground due to all the extreme hard right members refusing to work with anyone else. Meaning that they don’t get the Senate and may lose even more ground in the House. If they inflict another shutdown in January or February, they could even wind up handing the House back to the Dems.
(As a sidenote, that might be an actual thought on the part of the higher-ups in the GOP – to give the hardliners enough rope to hang themselves, and then have the clout with voters to sweep them out of the way. Of course, that assumes that an increasingly angry and frantic hard right GOP base will understand the reason why they are losing elections. So far, they don’t seem to have been getting the message…)
Getting back to O’Reilly, his wild accusation about Single Payer doesn’t hold water for the most basic of reasons. President Obama and the Dems specifically gave up on the Public Option as part of their many gives to the GOP while the ACA was moving through Congress. Most people in the US support a Single Payer system, as it would obviously be the cheapest and simplest way to go. But the GOP rabidly opposes it, as this would both eliminate the insurance industry from what’s been a lucrative market for them and it would create another government program that the GOP would be unable to touch. So the Dems and President Obama only included a weaker Public Option in the original version of the ACA along with all the GOP ideas about “individual mandate” and so on. When the GOP congresspeople screamed about the Public Option, the Dems took it out, among other things, thinking that would help get the GOP to start actually trying to work on the bill with them. Instead, the GOP folded their arms, stomped their feet and refused to participate, other than to repeatedly try to use parliamentary tactics to kill the ACA before it could get out of committee or either house.
This wasn’t a bill passed “in the dead of night” although it did wind up passing without GOP votes. It was passed in broad daylight, with the GOP actively refusing to participate in the process. The GOP wasn’t ignored. They were repeatedly encouraged to help. The Dems caved multiple times on multiple aspects of the bill, and it was never enough for the GOP. Because the goal of the GOP was for the bill to not go anywhere. They wanted a repeat of what they did to Hillary Clinton in the 1990s, when they sandbagged her attempt at health care reform at that time. The idea here was to block everything President Obama did, and then campaign on the notion that he was a “failure” who couldn’t get anything done. When they themselves failed at this strategy, they responded with a series of temper tantrums and further attempts at obstruction. Part of this took the form of the GOP insisting that states be able to regulate the ACA individually rather than having everything done at the federal level. After the Dems caved on this, the GOP responded by having nearly every GOP governor and state house refuse to do anything to support the ACA – which was a backdoor way of not funding it, among other levels of obstruction. Many of those same GOP state officials also filed suit, in an attempt to get a conservative Supreme Court to throw the ACA out – and had this idea worked, it would have timed out to deliver President Obama a crushing defeat right before the 2012 election. Instead, the Supreme Court upheld the law and President Obama handily won reelection, leaving the GOP angrier than they were before, if this was even possible. So now the GOP has tried to shut down the whole government in an attempt to defund the program, and they’ve failed even at that. So what do they have left to do now? Carp about the program, trot out any example of problems with it, and generally grouse about every detail that they can.
I don’t know that there’s a “secret plan” at work here, but there’s definitely a GOP strategy being employed. It’s no secret that they hate this President, and it’s no secret that they will do whatever they can to undermine him. But for all their wishful thinking, he’s going to be in office for the next three years and there’s really nothing they can do about that. Except throw the tantrums we are now regularly seeing on Fox News.
Except that O’Reilly has never been offering a compromise – he’s been hacking away at the ACA and at Obama since the beginning. The point of his “reasonable” alternative would be to effectively kill the ACA by pushing it off for a year to make it possible for a new GOP majority to repeal it assuming that all goes according to the Fox News playbook. Best case for them, the GOP wins big in the midterms as they normally do and then they can instantly repeal the whole thing and override any veto from President Obama. But that won’t really work if the ACA continues to bring people into the exchanges over the next year. And O’Reilly isn’t thinking particularly realistically. The more likely scenario next year is that the GOP loses ground due to all the extreme hard right members refusing to work with anyone else. Meaning that they don’t get the Senate and may lose even more ground in the House. If they inflict another shutdown in January or February, they could even wind up handing the House back to the Dems.
(As a sidenote, that might be an actual thought on the part of the higher-ups in the GOP – to give the hardliners enough rope to hang themselves, and then have the clout with voters to sweep them out of the way. Of course, that assumes that an increasingly angry and frantic hard right GOP base will understand the reason why they are losing elections. So far, they don’t seem to have been getting the message…)
Getting back to O’Reilly, his wild accusation about Single Payer doesn’t hold water for the most basic of reasons. President Obama and the Dems specifically gave up on the Public Option as part of their many gives to the GOP while the ACA was moving through Congress. Most people in the US support a Single Payer system, as it would obviously be the cheapest and simplest way to go. But the GOP rabidly opposes it, as this would both eliminate the insurance industry from what’s been a lucrative market for them and it would create another government program that the GOP would be unable to touch. So the Dems and President Obama only included a weaker Public Option in the original version of the ACA along with all the GOP ideas about “individual mandate” and so on. When the GOP congresspeople screamed about the Public Option, the Dems took it out, among other things, thinking that would help get the GOP to start actually trying to work on the bill with them. Instead, the GOP folded their arms, stomped their feet and refused to participate, other than to repeatedly try to use parliamentary tactics to kill the ACA before it could get out of committee or either house.
This wasn’t a bill passed “in the dead of night” although it did wind up passing without GOP votes. It was passed in broad daylight, with the GOP actively refusing to participate in the process. The GOP wasn’t ignored. They were repeatedly encouraged to help. The Dems caved multiple times on multiple aspects of the bill, and it was never enough for the GOP. Because the goal of the GOP was for the bill to not go anywhere. They wanted a repeat of what they did to Hillary Clinton in the 1990s, when they sandbagged her attempt at health care reform at that time. The idea here was to block everything President Obama did, and then campaign on the notion that he was a “failure” who couldn’t get anything done. When they themselves failed at this strategy, they responded with a series of temper tantrums and further attempts at obstruction. Part of this took the form of the GOP insisting that states be able to regulate the ACA individually rather than having everything done at the federal level. After the Dems caved on this, the GOP responded by having nearly every GOP governor and state house refuse to do anything to support the ACA – which was a backdoor way of not funding it, among other levels of obstruction. Many of those same GOP state officials also filed suit, in an attempt to get a conservative Supreme Court to throw the ACA out – and had this idea worked, it would have timed out to deliver President Obama a crushing defeat right before the 2012 election. Instead, the Supreme Court upheld the law and President Obama handily won reelection, leaving the GOP angrier than they were before, if this was even possible. So now the GOP has tried to shut down the whole government in an attempt to defund the program, and they’ve failed even at that. So what do they have left to do now? Carp about the program, trot out any example of problems with it, and generally grouse about every detail that they can.
I don’t know that there’s a “secret plan” at work here, but there’s definitely a GOP strategy being employed. It’s no secret that they hate this President, and it’s no secret that they will do whatever they can to undermine him. But for all their wishful thinking, he’s going to be in office for the next three years and there’s really nothing they can do about that. Except throw the tantrums we are now regularly seeing on Fox News.
Kevin Koster commented on Megyn Kelly’s Phony ObamaCare Victim Doesn’t Need To Die
2014-09-06 13:55:24 -0400
· Flag
Steve Spence, your comments don’t make sense. First you say that there are no subsidies. Then you say they “will go away”. How can they go away if you just said that they didn’t exist?
Further, you seem not to have actually read the HHS reports that connect to your link. If you actually took the time to do so – just going from the 2014 report, you’ll find that your numbers are misleading in one part and completely false in another.
You say that the percentage of US citizens dependent on welfare is over 23%. That’s not what the HHS report shows. What it actually says is that 23% is the number for US citizens who have participated at ANY amount with any welfare program. That could be as little as a single food stamp, so to speak. (And by the way, in several states, there are employees of companies like Walmart who need food stamps to supplement their wages as they are so low) If you want to talk about dependency, the HHS report defines that as where you get more than half your income from welfare. In that case, the proper number would be 5.2% of US citizens.
You then go on to note that blue states somehow have 50% of their populations dependent on welfare. That’s not indicated anywhere in the HHS reports. But in another 2013 chart compiled from USDA data, I find the following top twelve states for participation in SNAP (food stamps) alone:
Mississippi – 21%
Oregon – 20%
New Mexico – 20%
Tennessee – 20%
Michigan – 20%
Louisiana – 20%
Alabama – 19%
Kentucky – 19%
West Virginia – 19%
Maine – 19%
Georgia – 18%
South Carolina – 18%
This does not line up with your contention of either the 50% number or the idea that the blue states somehow have greater amounts of their populations dependent on these programs. And just thinking logically, we’d all be amazed to hear that half of California and New York were all dependent on Welfare…
Further, you seem not to have actually read the HHS reports that connect to your link. If you actually took the time to do so – just going from the 2014 report, you’ll find that your numbers are misleading in one part and completely false in another.
You say that the percentage of US citizens dependent on welfare is over 23%. That’s not what the HHS report shows. What it actually says is that 23% is the number for US citizens who have participated at ANY amount with any welfare program. That could be as little as a single food stamp, so to speak. (And by the way, in several states, there are employees of companies like Walmart who need food stamps to supplement their wages as they are so low) If you want to talk about dependency, the HHS report defines that as where you get more than half your income from welfare. In that case, the proper number would be 5.2% of US citizens.
You then go on to note that blue states somehow have 50% of their populations dependent on welfare. That’s not indicated anywhere in the HHS reports. But in another 2013 chart compiled from USDA data, I find the following top twelve states for participation in SNAP (food stamps) alone:
Mississippi – 21%
Oregon – 20%
New Mexico – 20%
Tennessee – 20%
Michigan – 20%
Louisiana – 20%
Alabama – 19%
Kentucky – 19%
West Virginia – 19%
Maine – 19%
Georgia – 18%
South Carolina – 18%
This does not line up with your contention of either the 50% number or the idea that the blue states somehow have greater amounts of their populations dependent on these programs. And just thinking logically, we’d all be amazed to hear that half of California and New York were all dependent on Welfare…
Kevin Koster commented on Megyn Kelly Can’t Stand Discussion About How ObamaCare Is Providing Health Insurance For The Uninsured
2013-11-08 13:43:43 -0500
· Flag
This was a particularly noxious interview. Kelly could not tolerate the fact that Colmes was pointing out facts that were inconvenient to her opinion.
But there was one inadvertently funny moment: When Colmes made the comment that conservatives would prefer to hear “I resign”, the other guest happily nodded his agreement.
But there was one inadvertently funny moment: When Colmes made the comment that conservatives would prefer to hear “I resign”, the other guest happily nodded his agreement.
Kevin Koster commented on O’Reilly: For The ‘Greater Good,’ People Should Go Without Health Insurance Another Year
2013-11-07 13:14:30 -0500
· Flag
This may be one of the most unintentionally hilarious suggestions to come from O’Reilly in a while.
Let me see if I understand him correctly. He wants to shut down as much of the ACA as possible and essentially keep it unfunded for another year, with maybe a small number of people signing up here and there. And then, pray tell, what might happen in 2014, when it comes up again. That’s right, there’s a midterm election. An election that O’Reilly is banking on the GOP doing better than expected in, so that they somehow get a majority in the Senate. And then, what do you know? This new hypothetical GOP congress votes to REPEAL the entire ACA, laughing all the way as they do so.
This is why you have to watch what these guys say very closely. O’Reilly has been cannily playing both sides of the fence here, but his true bias has been showing through much more strongly than I think he realizes.
O’Reilly keeps trying to play the reasoned, middle of the road approach for GOP pundits: Let’s just put the brakes on, let’s try to find a compromise solution here. Except that he’s also been hectoring as loud as he could that the law is already “NOT WORKING!” and “a FAILURE!” and “it’s HURTING THE FOLKS, CAN’T YOU SEE THAT???!!!”. So if you follow his narrative, you’d conclude that the ACA is just a disaster, but very reasonable, sage O’Reilly would have you just give it another year to get worked out. And of course, next year, O’Reilly will then argue that “Look, it didn’t work out, nobody wants it, Congress should do the right thing and REPEAL it. And that’s the memo.”
And we should keep in mind that O’Reilly cloaks the whole discussion in heavily anti-Obama sentiments. He suggests that Obama should be impeached for not parsing his words overly carefully about what plans people could keep. (Of course, if Obama had actually given all the caveats for people who had flimsy plans or about craven insurers playing games, O’Reilly would have been the first to seize on that and scream that “the folks” wouldn’t want something that needs so much explanation.) He presents a false narrative about what happened with Syria, presuming that the diplomatic success there was some kind of failure, he repeatedly tries to allege false things about the IRS matter, and when all else fails, he goes running back to the myths about the attack on the Benghazi consulate. All of which fits directly in with the Fox News meme of trying to establish a historical record of President Obama as being some kind of a failure.
And we shouldn’t forget O’Reilly’s enraged rant about how Americans should have voted for Mitt Romney and that they’re getting what they deserved in re-electing President Obama. (Which fits in with Hannity’s statements about how Mitt Romney is the man who SHOULD have been elected in 2012.) That actually ties in with the predictions that O’Reilly was making for more than a year before the 2012 election – that Obama could not and should not be re-elected. Like the rest of Fox News, O’Reilly was furious to see the actual results as they happened. He and the rest of the right wing pundits effectively blamed the electorate (“the low information voters”, “people who want free stuff”, etc) for not letting the right wing have their way. It seems that they’re not done with this idea yet, as futile as it’s been for them.
A final note – Fox News regularly focuses on dropping approval ratings for President Obama, which is to be expected given all the brouhaha about the ACA and all the consistently negative coverage from right wing media. But they also consistently ignore a few basic facts while they are doing so. First, they ignore that the Congressional approval numbers are horrifying, and should be causing the GOP to be a lot more worried than they are willing to publicly admit. Second, they ignore that with the polarization of this country, it’s unlikely you’ll see President Obama get over 50 percent approval at any time – the GOP responders will always give him a “NO!” when asked – which means what you’re really looking at is whether a smaller fraction of Dems and independents are unhappy with this or that latest issue. And those numbers go up and down all the time. Third, it’s interesting that the GOP once again turns to Gallup for the lowest number they could find. Except that they forget to note that Gallup, along with Rasmussen, predicted a Mitt Romney victory when the facts were plainly going the other way last year. I would take their numbers with a grain of salt before believing them – at least for another few election cycles, to give them time to re-establish some credibility. If anyone wants to look at REAL low approval ratings, check out the really scary ones that George W. Bush had before he left office and left the country’s economy in wreckage in 2008. But I don’t recall Fox News trumpeting those numbers – I seem to remember the Fox pundits challenging anyone who presented them. I wonder what the difference is now. Isn’t Fox News supposed to be “Fair and Balanced”?
Let me see if I understand him correctly. He wants to shut down as much of the ACA as possible and essentially keep it unfunded for another year, with maybe a small number of people signing up here and there. And then, pray tell, what might happen in 2014, when it comes up again. That’s right, there’s a midterm election. An election that O’Reilly is banking on the GOP doing better than expected in, so that they somehow get a majority in the Senate. And then, what do you know? This new hypothetical GOP congress votes to REPEAL the entire ACA, laughing all the way as they do so.
This is why you have to watch what these guys say very closely. O’Reilly has been cannily playing both sides of the fence here, but his true bias has been showing through much more strongly than I think he realizes.
O’Reilly keeps trying to play the reasoned, middle of the road approach for GOP pundits: Let’s just put the brakes on, let’s try to find a compromise solution here. Except that he’s also been hectoring as loud as he could that the law is already “NOT WORKING!” and “a FAILURE!” and “it’s HURTING THE FOLKS, CAN’T YOU SEE THAT???!!!”. So if you follow his narrative, you’d conclude that the ACA is just a disaster, but very reasonable, sage O’Reilly would have you just give it another year to get worked out. And of course, next year, O’Reilly will then argue that “Look, it didn’t work out, nobody wants it, Congress should do the right thing and REPEAL it. And that’s the memo.”
And we should keep in mind that O’Reilly cloaks the whole discussion in heavily anti-Obama sentiments. He suggests that Obama should be impeached for not parsing his words overly carefully about what plans people could keep. (Of course, if Obama had actually given all the caveats for people who had flimsy plans or about craven insurers playing games, O’Reilly would have been the first to seize on that and scream that “the folks” wouldn’t want something that needs so much explanation.) He presents a false narrative about what happened with Syria, presuming that the diplomatic success there was some kind of failure, he repeatedly tries to allege false things about the IRS matter, and when all else fails, he goes running back to the myths about the attack on the Benghazi consulate. All of which fits directly in with the Fox News meme of trying to establish a historical record of President Obama as being some kind of a failure.
And we shouldn’t forget O’Reilly’s enraged rant about how Americans should have voted for Mitt Romney and that they’re getting what they deserved in re-electing President Obama. (Which fits in with Hannity’s statements about how Mitt Romney is the man who SHOULD have been elected in 2012.) That actually ties in with the predictions that O’Reilly was making for more than a year before the 2012 election – that Obama could not and should not be re-elected. Like the rest of Fox News, O’Reilly was furious to see the actual results as they happened. He and the rest of the right wing pundits effectively blamed the electorate (“the low information voters”, “people who want free stuff”, etc) for not letting the right wing have their way. It seems that they’re not done with this idea yet, as futile as it’s been for them.
A final note – Fox News regularly focuses on dropping approval ratings for President Obama, which is to be expected given all the brouhaha about the ACA and all the consistently negative coverage from right wing media. But they also consistently ignore a few basic facts while they are doing so. First, they ignore that the Congressional approval numbers are horrifying, and should be causing the GOP to be a lot more worried than they are willing to publicly admit. Second, they ignore that with the polarization of this country, it’s unlikely you’ll see President Obama get over 50 percent approval at any time – the GOP responders will always give him a “NO!” when asked – which means what you’re really looking at is whether a smaller fraction of Dems and independents are unhappy with this or that latest issue. And those numbers go up and down all the time. Third, it’s interesting that the GOP once again turns to Gallup for the lowest number they could find. Except that they forget to note that Gallup, along with Rasmussen, predicted a Mitt Romney victory when the facts were plainly going the other way last year. I would take their numbers with a grain of salt before believing them – at least for another few election cycles, to give them time to re-establish some credibility. If anyone wants to look at REAL low approval ratings, check out the really scary ones that George W. Bush had before he left office and left the country’s economy in wreckage in 2008. But I don’t recall Fox News trumpeting those numbers – I seem to remember the Fox pundits challenging anyone who presented them. I wonder what the difference is now. Isn’t Fox News supposed to be “Fair and Balanced”?
Kevin Koster commented on Megyn Kelly Dismisses Obamacare Coverage Of The Uninsured As ‘Old News’ So She Can Dwell On Impeaching President Obama
2013-11-06 11:15:10 -0500
· Flag
The right wing’s newest attempt to foment impeachment of President Obama smacks not just of temper tantrums but of desperation on their part. Fox News clearly has no idea how to deal with a fractured GOP and is extremely frustrated that they can’t seem to make life any more difficult for the Obama Administration.
The real problem they’re facing looks like it’s the war between the “business of America is business” Republicans and the more radical right wingers who just want to say no to anything that Democrats and Obama present. Fox News has alternately embraced each of these positions, sometimes within the same hour of programming. At one minute, they’re extolling the virtues of Chris Christie. The next, they’re condemning him for not keeping President Obama out of New Jersey last year after Sandy. One minute they’re openly embracing the radical right and passively endorsing their wildest charges. The next minute, someone like Karl Rove or Mike Huckabee is up there castigating the radicals for making it impossible to govern the country. This is a serious, serious problem for both the GOP and for Fox News, and it bodes ill for them in the long term.
In the short term, the only thing they all agree on is that they hate President Obama and they wish to obstruct him at every possible turn. The multiple attempts to find a “Watergate” in his Administration are just examples of Fox News trying to create a story out of thin air and get their base fired up about something that will never happen. We’ve already heard this song from them multiple times. Remember when Joe Sestak was going to be the downfall of President Obama? Hannity was convinced that impeachment was just around the corner then. How about when Benghazi was going to lead to impeachment? Or maybe the invented IRS “scandal”? None of these went anywhere because they were hot air.
The idea that the GOP wants to portray President Obama’s statements about the ACA as the biggest scandal to tarnish the presidency in 50 years is beyond ridiculous. President Obama made statements that were generally true regarding how the policy would work. He and his advisors chose not to get into minute detail because that would have simply confused everyone. What president would have made this statement: “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it – unless it’s one of those really cheap underfunded plans that don’t really cover anything in the first place”? And it’s not true that the Democrats passed the ACA in the dead of night at all. The Democrats and President Obama tried for a year to work with the GOP to find a compromise in the creation of the ACA. The Democrats caved on multiple issues – they based the plan on a GOP template, they folded multiple times on any number of levels, and they even gave up the public option, which was the only reason to come up with this plan in the first place. The GOP’s response was to continue to obstruct and delay, in the hopes they could repeat their success of blocking the Clinton-era attempt via intransigence. At that point, with the GOP clearly having no interest in participating, the Dems went ahead and passed the bill with the majority they had. The GOP then campaigned on having voted NO, just as they had pledged to do with all Obama policies before he was even inaugurated.
And now we have the spectacle of the right wing blaming the heavy demand on federal websites and access points on the Democrats, when it was GOP governors who pointedly refused to involve their states in the process, in the hopes of causing this result. In another caving move, the Dems conceded that the exchanges for the ACA could be operated and directed by the individual states, since the GOP was so adamant in that area. And what did GOP state governors and legislators do? Refuse to do anything, thus fobbing the whole thing back to the federal government – the very thing they said they weren’t going to allow. Which of course caused an overload of demand to the federal sites – the very same overload that the GOP is trying to cite as an example of the ACA’s “failure”.
If I were to guess, I’d think that inside the walls of Fox News, there is grave concern about how they’re going to mount successful congressional campaigns next year and how they’re going to unite their party again before the next Presidential election. All the rest is a pretty large smokescreen.
And the funniest part of the whole thing is the GOP spin that Ken Cucinelli’s embarrassing defeat in Virginia is somehow a “warning” to Dems in other states about the ACA. It isn’t. It just means that even in a low turnout election where the GOP hardliners would normally overwhelm the Dems, Cucinelli was unable to pull out what should have been an easy win. GOP pundits point to Macauliffe outspending Cucinelli, and that’s true – but they’re leaving out that the relative numbers are a heck of a lot smaller than you’ll see in 2014 or 2016. This was an off-year election with a low voter turnout, as expected. The fact that the GOP could not turn out any more of their rabid base (who all hate the Dems and the ACA already) under these circumstances is likely a far greater “warning” – and it isn’t one that any Democrat is concerned that much about.
The real problem they’re facing looks like it’s the war between the “business of America is business” Republicans and the more radical right wingers who just want to say no to anything that Democrats and Obama present. Fox News has alternately embraced each of these positions, sometimes within the same hour of programming. At one minute, they’re extolling the virtues of Chris Christie. The next, they’re condemning him for not keeping President Obama out of New Jersey last year after Sandy. One minute they’re openly embracing the radical right and passively endorsing their wildest charges. The next minute, someone like Karl Rove or Mike Huckabee is up there castigating the radicals for making it impossible to govern the country. This is a serious, serious problem for both the GOP and for Fox News, and it bodes ill for them in the long term.
In the short term, the only thing they all agree on is that they hate President Obama and they wish to obstruct him at every possible turn. The multiple attempts to find a “Watergate” in his Administration are just examples of Fox News trying to create a story out of thin air and get their base fired up about something that will never happen. We’ve already heard this song from them multiple times. Remember when Joe Sestak was going to be the downfall of President Obama? Hannity was convinced that impeachment was just around the corner then. How about when Benghazi was going to lead to impeachment? Or maybe the invented IRS “scandal”? None of these went anywhere because they were hot air.
The idea that the GOP wants to portray President Obama’s statements about the ACA as the biggest scandal to tarnish the presidency in 50 years is beyond ridiculous. President Obama made statements that were generally true regarding how the policy would work. He and his advisors chose not to get into minute detail because that would have simply confused everyone. What president would have made this statement: “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it – unless it’s one of those really cheap underfunded plans that don’t really cover anything in the first place”? And it’s not true that the Democrats passed the ACA in the dead of night at all. The Democrats and President Obama tried for a year to work with the GOP to find a compromise in the creation of the ACA. The Democrats caved on multiple issues – they based the plan on a GOP template, they folded multiple times on any number of levels, and they even gave up the public option, which was the only reason to come up with this plan in the first place. The GOP’s response was to continue to obstruct and delay, in the hopes they could repeat their success of blocking the Clinton-era attempt via intransigence. At that point, with the GOP clearly having no interest in participating, the Dems went ahead and passed the bill with the majority they had. The GOP then campaigned on having voted NO, just as they had pledged to do with all Obama policies before he was even inaugurated.
And now we have the spectacle of the right wing blaming the heavy demand on federal websites and access points on the Democrats, when it was GOP governors who pointedly refused to involve their states in the process, in the hopes of causing this result. In another caving move, the Dems conceded that the exchanges for the ACA could be operated and directed by the individual states, since the GOP was so adamant in that area. And what did GOP state governors and legislators do? Refuse to do anything, thus fobbing the whole thing back to the federal government – the very thing they said they weren’t going to allow. Which of course caused an overload of demand to the federal sites – the very same overload that the GOP is trying to cite as an example of the ACA’s “failure”.
If I were to guess, I’d think that inside the walls of Fox News, there is grave concern about how they’re going to mount successful congressional campaigns next year and how they’re going to unite their party again before the next Presidential election. All the rest is a pretty large smokescreen.
And the funniest part of the whole thing is the GOP spin that Ken Cucinelli’s embarrassing defeat in Virginia is somehow a “warning” to Dems in other states about the ACA. It isn’t. It just means that even in a low turnout election where the GOP hardliners would normally overwhelm the Dems, Cucinelli was unable to pull out what should have been an easy win. GOP pundits point to Macauliffe outspending Cucinelli, and that’s true – but they’re leaving out that the relative numbers are a heck of a lot smaller than you’ll see in 2014 or 2016. This was an off-year election with a low voter turnout, as expected. The fact that the GOP could not turn out any more of their rabid base (who all hate the Dems and the ACA already) under these circumstances is likely a far greater “warning” – and it isn’t one that any Democrat is concerned that much about.