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.
Kevin Koster commented on Megyn Kelly’s Near Hysteria To Bash Obamacare
2013-10-31 01:43:29 -0400
· Flag
This was a bizarre evening of what looked like a constant stream of fairly angry attacks on President Obama and anyone in his Administration they could find tape on.
It’s interesting to me that Fox News has declared the ACA a “scandal” and a “failure” already, and that they’ve clearly directed their on-air talent to play this up as much as possible. On the other hand, it isn’t surprising, given that they declared President Obama a failure from the moment he took the oath of office in 2009.
It’s also interesting that you have Megyn Kelly desperately trying to drum up anti-Obama sentiment in her pieces while you have Bill O’Reilly clearly pushing for an impeachment of President Obama over what he knew about how the ACA would be implemented and when. Which is frankly ridiculous.
It seems as if Fox News has decreed that all their hosts need to stay on overdrive attack mode, even if there’s nothing for them to attack about.
It’s interesting to me that Fox News has declared the ACA a “scandal” and a “failure” already, and that they’ve clearly directed their on-air talent to play this up as much as possible. On the other hand, it isn’t surprising, given that they declared President Obama a failure from the moment he took the oath of office in 2009.
It’s also interesting that you have Megyn Kelly desperately trying to drum up anti-Obama sentiment in her pieces while you have Bill O’Reilly clearly pushing for an impeachment of President Obama over what he knew about how the ACA would be implemented and when. Which is frankly ridiculous.
It seems as if Fox News has decreed that all their hosts need to stay on overdrive attack mode, even if there’s nothing for them to attack about.
Kevin Koster commented on Ted Cruz Wins Our Outrageous Quote Of The Week Poll
2013-10-25 16:15:29 -0400
· Flag
Bill O’Reilly may have put himself on the map for this week with an outrageous “Memo” at the top of his show last night. He went off on a rant about how people get what they deserve, and how “low information voters” re-elected President Obama when in O’Reilly’s opinion, that re-election wasn’t deserved. O’Reilly sounded genuinely angry during this rant, which indicates we may see some interesting interviews along these lines over the coming months…
Kevin Koster commented on Hannity's Obamacare Stunt Gets Call Center Worker Fired
2013-10-25 19:00:20 -0400
· Flag
Interesting that “Ken” does not seem to be aware of the reports of Fox News having their employees set up multiple dummy accounts in order to disrupt websites like this one. If “Ken” were to take five seconds to enter a google search of “Fox News” and “sock puppet”, he might learn something new. But I think he already knows that. Not sure where he’s getting this idea that “paid protesters and commenters are from the left”. This may simply be yet another example of Fox News and its supporters engaging in projection.
I’m glad to see that “Ken” has realized that Charles Grodin’s last name is indeed spelled with an “I” and not with an “e”. Interesting that he quotes the exchange without the context. Interesting that he doesn’t note the tone as I did. Interesting that he is unable to answer the basic points I made. Again, Hannity was being challenged on the fact that Erich “Mancow” Muller had just done a very public stunt of having himself waterboarded to prove that it wasn’t torture. After just a few seconds, Mancow begged for mercy and publicly admitted it was torture. Charles Grodin knew this, and Sean Hannity absolutely knew this. Grodin was challenging Hannity to do the same thing. Hannity said he would do so for charity. He then joked that he would let Grodin do it. Grodin made the point that he wouldn’t do it – which was consistent with the point that Grodin was making about waterboarding being torture. Meaning that Grodin wouldn’t engage in it, but Hannity was agreeing to undergo it since Ollie North had told him it wasn’t really torture. Just because Charles Grodin didn’t wish to personally torture Sean Hannity doesn’t change the fact that Hannity made a wild offer here – that he would agree to be waterboarded for charity to prove to everyone once and for all that it wasn’t torture. (Or at least as far as Grodin was putting it to him.) Years later, Hannity has still not fulfilled that offer, nor has he offered any explanation to justify his cowardice in this matter. We’re still waiting, and making excuses for him will not change that fact.
I’m glad to see that “Ken” has realized that Charles Grodin’s last name is indeed spelled with an “I” and not with an “e”. Interesting that he quotes the exchange without the context. Interesting that he doesn’t note the tone as I did. Interesting that he is unable to answer the basic points I made. Again, Hannity was being challenged on the fact that Erich “Mancow” Muller had just done a very public stunt of having himself waterboarded to prove that it wasn’t torture. After just a few seconds, Mancow begged for mercy and publicly admitted it was torture. Charles Grodin knew this, and Sean Hannity absolutely knew this. Grodin was challenging Hannity to do the same thing. Hannity said he would do so for charity. He then joked that he would let Grodin do it. Grodin made the point that he wouldn’t do it – which was consistent with the point that Grodin was making about waterboarding being torture. Meaning that Grodin wouldn’t engage in it, but Hannity was agreeing to undergo it since Ollie North had told him it wasn’t really torture. Just because Charles Grodin didn’t wish to personally torture Sean Hannity doesn’t change the fact that Hannity made a wild offer here – that he would agree to be waterboarded for charity to prove to everyone once and for all that it wasn’t torture. (Or at least as far as Grodin was putting it to him.) Years later, Hannity has still not fulfilled that offer, nor has he offered any explanation to justify his cowardice in this matter. We’re still waiting, and making excuses for him will not change that fact.
Kevin Koster commented on Hannity Promises To Help Senator Mike Lee Get Re-Elected
2013-10-25 15:12:16 -0400
· Flag
This was a pretty desperate interview in a pretty desperate show. Hannity seems to be flailing now. He keeps repeating debunked talking points and cutting off anyone that tries to educate him.
Kevin Koster commented on Bill O'Reilly, Jesse Watters Attack 'Anti-Christmas' Maine Town Council
2013-10-22 19:16:02 -0400
· Flag
Watching the footage from the Town Council, it’s clear that Watters had no interest in listening to the members or in getting any information. Instead, he came in with a preset agenda of trying to embarrass the Council and get a few quick soundbites to play on O’Reilly’s show. The longer footage shows that the Council members tried to provide him with real world answers to the cheap shots he was throwing.
It should be noted that not only does Bar Harbor already have a veteran’s memorial in their town square, but they actually voted funds to upgrade and improve it while dropping the more recent one. The more recent one appears to have been a gambit to provoke confrontations just like this one. Council members noted that it was flimsy, that it was so poorly built that it actually did a disservice to the veterans it purportedly honored, and that there was resistance to the idea of attaching any one specific religion to the sacrifice made by so many veterans. So this wasn’t a matter of a town voting against veterans or religion. It was a matter of a town dealing with the reality of a flimsy “memorial” that could potentially present a hazard, among other problems.
The last part of the council’s video is instructive. After enduring nearly 15 minutes of Watters’ attempt to monopolize their meeting with gotcha questions and soundbites, the chairperson asked if there was anyone else who wanted to discuss this matter, while regular townspeople made gestures that indicate they’d had enough of Watters too. Watters apparently kept at it for a couple minutes further before the chairperson was forced to remind Watters that they had other business to attend to. Watters attempted to get another gotcha shot in but saw it batted away and dismissed. His final attempt to flail with “Merry Christmas” was also batted away for what it was – another cheap shot. I’m not sure how anyone could portray this interaction as anything but humiliating for Watters.
It should be noted that not only does Bar Harbor already have a veteran’s memorial in their town square, but they actually voted funds to upgrade and improve it while dropping the more recent one. The more recent one appears to have been a gambit to provoke confrontations just like this one. Council members noted that it was flimsy, that it was so poorly built that it actually did a disservice to the veterans it purportedly honored, and that there was resistance to the idea of attaching any one specific religion to the sacrifice made by so many veterans. So this wasn’t a matter of a town voting against veterans or religion. It was a matter of a town dealing with the reality of a flimsy “memorial” that could potentially present a hazard, among other problems.
The last part of the council’s video is instructive. After enduring nearly 15 minutes of Watters’ attempt to monopolize their meeting with gotcha questions and soundbites, the chairperson asked if there was anyone else who wanted to discuss this matter, while regular townspeople made gestures that indicate they’d had enough of Watters too. Watters apparently kept at it for a couple minutes further before the chairperson was forced to remind Watters that they had other business to attend to. Watters attempted to get another gotcha shot in but saw it batted away and dismissed. His final attempt to flail with “Merry Christmas” was also batted away for what it was – another cheap shot. I’m not sure how anyone could portray this interaction as anything but humiliating for Watters.
Kevin Koster commented on Van Susteren And Loesch Can't Think Of Any Tea Party Insults About Liberals
2013-10-22 16:01:15 -0400
· Flag
Let me see if I’ve got this right. Bill O’Reilly goes off on a rant the SAME NIGHT wherein he slyly attacks and smears President Obama while pretending that the right wing is just “concerned about the future of the country”, and Greta Van Susteren on the same network can’t think of any insults going toward liberals? And we should note that O’Reilly was being particularly sneaky. He was attempting to make it sound like President Obama is somehow taking all the GOP and “Tea Party” attacks too personally and is now on a vendetta to “destroy” them, while the right wing is responding by dislike of the President “because they are genuinely concerned about the future of the country.” See how he did that? He just accused the President of being tempermental and childish while presenting right wing attackers as defenders of the country’s future. Riiight. How about the truth? That the right wing attackers have been viciously going after Barack Obama in every manner possible, including personal swipes at his wife and children, for over 6 years now. And understandably, President Obama is frustrated that these guys are being so petulant and tantrumish, since their behavior makes it nearly impossible for the government to operate. Not to mention that they seem to be gleeful about actually shutting the entire institution down and hurting the economy in the process. But that’s a story for another day.
How about Sean Hannity’s regular insults and attacks on liberals and Democrats on his program? How about Rush Limbaugh’s regular insults and attacks? Of course, I’m just naming pundits here. We could discuss the attacks leveled against Wendy Davis in Texas. We could discuss the comments made by Louie Gohmert and friends on Hannity’s show on a regular basis about Democrats. We could discuss the multiple attacks made on Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
It’s really an interesting historical document to see Fox News literally trying to convince its viewers that day is night and night is day.
How about Sean Hannity’s regular insults and attacks on liberals and Democrats on his program? How about Rush Limbaugh’s regular insults and attacks? Of course, I’m just naming pundits here. We could discuss the attacks leveled against Wendy Davis in Texas. We could discuss the comments made by Louie Gohmert and friends on Hannity’s show on a regular basis about Democrats. We could discuss the multiple attacks made on Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.
It’s really an interesting historical document to see Fox News literally trying to convince its viewers that day is night and night is day.
Kevin Koster commented on Fox News Reportedly Used Internet Sockpuppets To Discredit Its Critics
2013-10-22 11:12:12 -0400
· Flag
I really have to wonder how many of the people who have tried to be disruptive here were on the payroll. I’m sure some of them were real people – but most were clearly just trying to raise trouble.
Kevin Koster commented on Huckabee Blasts Cruz And The Intransigent Republicans Over Government Shutdown
2013-10-07 13:39:58 -0400
· Flag
Keep in mind that he isn’t disagreeing with the end goal of the GOP in media and politics – to completely repeal anything and everything that President Obama does. He’s disagreeing with the TACTICS. This is an argument about strategy.
At the same time, I’d also say that Huckabee is quite aware that Ted Cruz is potentially aiming for Huckabee’s position at Fox News, so this is also a preemptive shot to defuse that.
And the really bold move by Cruz and his friends to go after the GOP Senators who voted for cloture is the one that may be the petard that hoists him. The fact that Cruz was willing to turn on Republicans in a public and nasty fashion is the straw that is clearly too much for more centrist GOP members to stomach.
At the same time, I’d also say that Huckabee is quite aware that Ted Cruz is potentially aiming for Huckabee’s position at Fox News, so this is also a preemptive shot to defuse that.
And the really bold move by Cruz and his friends to go after the GOP Senators who voted for cloture is the one that may be the petard that hoists him. The fact that Cruz was willing to turn on Republicans in a public and nasty fashion is the straw that is clearly too much for more centrist GOP members to stomach.
Kevin Koster commented on Eric Bolling, Greg Gutfeld Accuse MSNBC Anchor Of Racism? Pots Meet Kettle?
2013-10-05 05:20:45 -0400
· Flag
The thing is that Gutfeld is trying so hard to be “provocative” and “outrageous” that it never really comes across as anything but a desperate play for attention.
Bolling is a more serious problem. His almost casual contempt for Bob Beckel and for any point of view not as far right as his can be really sinister at times. Note his pretense of not understanding Beckel’s bad joke about the “right wing conspiracy”. He knew perfectly well that Beckel was referring to the Clinton era comment about the right wing conspiracy working against them in the 90s in a far less obvious manner than the current attacks on President Obama. Bolling’s carefully studied throwaway of “Well, I don’t know what that means but…” was intended as a way to try to claim the moral high ground for himself in excusing reprehensible behavior by GOP congresspeople. Granted, Beckel made a crude comment about Ted Cruz the day before, which gave Bolling an unfortunate opening to play this card. But Bolling is certainly not above reproach in the same area.
At the same time, Beckel did a terrible job of explaining what Harry Reid was saying during the comment that’s been repeatedly played out of context by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. Bolling and the others were trying to use the position that Harry Reid was somehow hostile to children with cancer. When in fact Reid was arguing against the GOP tactic of playing one constituency off against another just to score cheap political points. And the broader point Beckel should have been making is that it’s disingenuous for extremists like Ted Cruz to be trying to feign concern about the various parts of government they have undermined when all the GOP needs to do to fix this situation is do their jobs and pass the budget without playing all these political games.
What will be interesting is the backlash against Cruz after this situation ends. How will Fox News react when other Republicans go after Cruz in the aftermath? Will they stick up for Cruz or will they toe the party line when the guys up top are looking to assign blame for this disaster? From the sounds of it, many Republicans are already moving away from Cruz as fast as they can – some in a fairly panicked mode. Does Fox News wish to be noted in the history books as sticking up for the guy who advocated a shutdown and then tried to duck responsibility for his bad behavior?
Bolling is a more serious problem. His almost casual contempt for Bob Beckel and for any point of view not as far right as his can be really sinister at times. Note his pretense of not understanding Beckel’s bad joke about the “right wing conspiracy”. He knew perfectly well that Beckel was referring to the Clinton era comment about the right wing conspiracy working against them in the 90s in a far less obvious manner than the current attacks on President Obama. Bolling’s carefully studied throwaway of “Well, I don’t know what that means but…” was intended as a way to try to claim the moral high ground for himself in excusing reprehensible behavior by GOP congresspeople. Granted, Beckel made a crude comment about Ted Cruz the day before, which gave Bolling an unfortunate opening to play this card. But Bolling is certainly not above reproach in the same area.
At the same time, Beckel did a terrible job of explaining what Harry Reid was saying during the comment that’s been repeatedly played out of context by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. Bolling and the others were trying to use the position that Harry Reid was somehow hostile to children with cancer. When in fact Reid was arguing against the GOP tactic of playing one constituency off against another just to score cheap political points. And the broader point Beckel should have been making is that it’s disingenuous for extremists like Ted Cruz to be trying to feign concern about the various parts of government they have undermined when all the GOP needs to do to fix this situation is do their jobs and pass the budget without playing all these political games.
What will be interesting is the backlash against Cruz after this situation ends. How will Fox News react when other Republicans go after Cruz in the aftermath? Will they stick up for Cruz or will they toe the party line when the guys up top are looking to assign blame for this disaster? From the sounds of it, many Republicans are already moving away from Cruz as fast as they can – some in a fairly panicked mode. Does Fox News wish to be noted in the history books as sticking up for the guy who advocated a shutdown and then tried to duck responsibility for his bad behavior?
Kevin Koster commented on Fox Pretends Its Poll Results Are Not Dismal For Republicans
2013-10-04 22:09:47 -0400
· Flag
The actual numbers of the poll are alarming for the GOP, which is why they are starting to turn on each other. The fact that Cruz is willing to go after his own party members over this should be telling, and some GOP members aren’t taking his behavior lying down.
It looks to me like Fox News is trying to keep a lid on a situation that is badly deteriorating for them, while some of the GOP congresspeople are starting to panic.
It looks to me like Fox News is trying to keep a lid on a situation that is badly deteriorating for them, while some of the GOP congresspeople are starting to panic.
Kevin Koster commented on O’Reilly Declares Obamacare A Dangerous Failure One Day After Going Into Effect
2013-10-03 15:17:41 -0400
· Flag
And again, O’Reilly’s yearlong delay idea is not intended to help the ACA work better. It’s his way of getting the Democrats to fall for the notion that this would be some kind of a fair compromise with the GOP, and thus allowing the GOP to hold the ACA off for another year while they take a few more whacks at repealing it. Were this strategy to succeed, the GOP could get control of both houses of the congress and then get rid of it outright – preferably while President Obama is still in office so they could rub his face in it.
O’Reilly took several other shots at the ACA throughout the hour, at one point particularly announcing with authority that the ACA will be repealed soon since it’s such a bad law, as part of the normal legislative process.
I believe O’Reilly’s real issue with Ted Cruz and with the harder right people within the GOP is that he disagrees with their tactics. He agrees with their goals – the dismantling of anything and everything President Obama and the Democrats accomplish. He just doesn’t like the current spectacle, because it makes the GOP look peevish and it hands control of the debate over to his opponents. And he doesn’t like that Ted Cruz clearly took this time to promote himself at the expense of other GOP members. (One wonders how they’ll deal with each other once Cruz winds up on Fox News as a fellow on-air personality. Unless O’Reilly retires first…)
O’Reilly took several other shots at the ACA throughout the hour, at one point particularly announcing with authority that the ACA will be repealed soon since it’s such a bad law, as part of the normal legislative process.
I believe O’Reilly’s real issue with Ted Cruz and with the harder right people within the GOP is that he disagrees with their tactics. He agrees with their goals – the dismantling of anything and everything President Obama and the Democrats accomplish. He just doesn’t like the current spectacle, because it makes the GOP look peevish and it hands control of the debate over to his opponents. And he doesn’t like that Ted Cruz clearly took this time to promote himself at the expense of other GOP members. (One wonders how they’ll deal with each other once Cruz winds up on Fox News as a fellow on-air personality. Unless O’Reilly retires first…)
Kevin Koster commented on Fox News Blames Obama For Making Government ‘Slimdown’ A ‘Shutdown’
2013-10-03 13:55:16 -0400
· Flag
Mr. Kerns isn’t trying to suggest that Fox News, which has been cheerleading this shutdown, is just “making an observation that apparently no one else is mentioning”, is he? If he is, that has to be one of the greatest examples of subtle irony I have seen in some time. Kerns is literally pulling the “just sayin’” card.
Who said that the National Park closures were “selective” other than Fox News and some GOP politicians trying to deflect attention from their failure to do their jobs? The statement about some kind of deliberate and selective closure process has already been rebutted by the Park Service. It’s a red herring argument of the strangest kind.
The fact is that the GOP politicians proposing to “investigate” might be better advised to spend their time passing the budget and not trying to grandstand. I would add that the GOP’s attempted use of World War II veterans as campaign props is shameful – and I wish that the pundits trying to play this card would apologize to the veterans and their families for this unfortunate behavior.
Who said that the National Park closures were “selective” other than Fox News and some GOP politicians trying to deflect attention from their failure to do their jobs? The statement about some kind of deliberate and selective closure process has already been rebutted by the Park Service. It’s a red herring argument of the strangest kind.
The fact is that the GOP politicians proposing to “investigate” might be better advised to spend their time passing the budget and not trying to grandstand. I would add that the GOP’s attempted use of World War II veterans as campaign props is shameful – and I wish that the pundits trying to play this card would apologize to the veterans and their families for this unfortunate behavior.
Kevin Koster commented on Cowardly Ted Cruz And Sean Hannity Pretend It’s ‘Harry Reid’s Shutdown’
2013-10-03 13:40:04 -0400
· Flag
And now the poster continues, with the strange comment about being a Progressive. All while using the rhetoric of the right wing. Having been a Progressive for over 30 years, I can attest that it doesn’t look like what the poster has presented by any means.
The “delay” that the right wing and the GOP want to inflict on the ACA is not intended to “work the wrinkles out” and they know it. If anything, the right wing should stop talking around the truth here. The actual goal of the right wing is to keep as much of the ACA from going into effect as possible, and simultaneously to make it look as expensive as possible. Were this goal to work, the GOP could then hold the ACA off past the 2014 midterms, at which point they would hope to win the Senate back and then try for the 60th time to repeal the ACA entirely. The right wing goal was never to fix the ACA – it was to get rid of it as yet another way of trying to attack the Democrats and this President. The right wing got away with similar chicanery during the Clinton presidency when they torpedoed Hillarycare. And now they’re trying anything they can to kill health care reform under President Obama. It’s fairly transparent what they’re doing, and one wishes they would stop pretending otherwise.
As for the rant about rich Democrat politicians, I frankly don’t know what relevance that has to this debate. Having voted in a Progressive manner for years, I’ve learned to keep an eye on politicians of all sides and not issue blanket condemnations like that. It’s one thing to have an issue with a group like the hard right of the GOP voting in lockstep to attack the government. It’s another to make strange sniping comments about Democrats’ broken promises. Granted, the Dems haven’t been able to do all that they’ve promised over the years. Granted, the Dems have done plenty of things I’ve had issues with, and Progressives have voiced those time and time again. (And if you want to see evidence of that, just head over to the website for Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now, or over to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, and you can find a treasure trove of material doing exactly that. Of particular interest to you should be Goodman’s Election Day interview with Bill Clinton in 2000.)
But it’s strange to hear a supposed Progressive saying that he doesn’t know of any “quality Progressives of color in our party”. How about Keith Ellison? How about Barbara Lee? How about the Congressional Black Caucus? How about the Progressive Democrats of America? One wonders if this poster did ANY research in this area before putting on the mantle of the left to try to condemn them from within.
And again, the Harry Reid response from yesterday was not what the right wing is deceptively editing it to sound like. He and Chuck Shumer both responded to a gotcha question that was intended to embarrass him. It doesn’t matter who asked that question. In fact, Reid showed surprise that Dana Bash would ask something like that. But the response was in concert with Shumer, who correctly pointed out “Why pit one against the other?” Meaning, why should we be telling sick children they need to compete with veterans as to who gets funding this week? And Reid properly continued the thought with “Why would we want to do that?” Again, the correct solution to this dilemma is for the GOP to do their job and fund the government. Then you wouldn’t have any issue of one group or another being put in such an untenable position. As Reid pointed out, having the GOP pick and choose which parts of the government they feel like funding this week is no way to manage a country. To follow that path would allow a small group of extremists to dictate terms to the rest of us. And that’s not going to happen.
The giveaway here is the line about “impending cracking of our support.” This makes sense coming from a Republican. The Dems certainly aren’t in that situation – the polls clearly show that the public is quite aware of who generated this problem and whose intransigence is keeping it going. The GOP doesn’t get to cheerlead for a shutdown for months and then run away from the consequences after they take us off a cliff. The cracking of support is certainly being felt by GOP politicians who are more and more openly rebelling against the hard right in the House and against the foolishness of Ted Cruz. And if they don’t stop the bleeding fairly soon, that cracking may get a lot louder. Further intransigence by the right wing can only result in a disaster for the GOP in the 2014 midterms – something that could hurt the party far more than they’re willing to publicly admit right now.
The “delay” that the right wing and the GOP want to inflict on the ACA is not intended to “work the wrinkles out” and they know it. If anything, the right wing should stop talking around the truth here. The actual goal of the right wing is to keep as much of the ACA from going into effect as possible, and simultaneously to make it look as expensive as possible. Were this goal to work, the GOP could then hold the ACA off past the 2014 midterms, at which point they would hope to win the Senate back and then try for the 60th time to repeal the ACA entirely. The right wing goal was never to fix the ACA – it was to get rid of it as yet another way of trying to attack the Democrats and this President. The right wing got away with similar chicanery during the Clinton presidency when they torpedoed Hillarycare. And now they’re trying anything they can to kill health care reform under President Obama. It’s fairly transparent what they’re doing, and one wishes they would stop pretending otherwise.
As for the rant about rich Democrat politicians, I frankly don’t know what relevance that has to this debate. Having voted in a Progressive manner for years, I’ve learned to keep an eye on politicians of all sides and not issue blanket condemnations like that. It’s one thing to have an issue with a group like the hard right of the GOP voting in lockstep to attack the government. It’s another to make strange sniping comments about Democrats’ broken promises. Granted, the Dems haven’t been able to do all that they’ve promised over the years. Granted, the Dems have done plenty of things I’ve had issues with, and Progressives have voiced those time and time again. (And if you want to see evidence of that, just head over to the website for Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now, or over to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, and you can find a treasure trove of material doing exactly that. Of particular interest to you should be Goodman’s Election Day interview with Bill Clinton in 2000.)
But it’s strange to hear a supposed Progressive saying that he doesn’t know of any “quality Progressives of color in our party”. How about Keith Ellison? How about Barbara Lee? How about the Congressional Black Caucus? How about the Progressive Democrats of America? One wonders if this poster did ANY research in this area before putting on the mantle of the left to try to condemn them from within.
And again, the Harry Reid response from yesterday was not what the right wing is deceptively editing it to sound like. He and Chuck Shumer both responded to a gotcha question that was intended to embarrass him. It doesn’t matter who asked that question. In fact, Reid showed surprise that Dana Bash would ask something like that. But the response was in concert with Shumer, who correctly pointed out “Why pit one against the other?” Meaning, why should we be telling sick children they need to compete with veterans as to who gets funding this week? And Reid properly continued the thought with “Why would we want to do that?” Again, the correct solution to this dilemma is for the GOP to do their job and fund the government. Then you wouldn’t have any issue of one group or another being put in such an untenable position. As Reid pointed out, having the GOP pick and choose which parts of the government they feel like funding this week is no way to manage a country. To follow that path would allow a small group of extremists to dictate terms to the rest of us. And that’s not going to happen.
The giveaway here is the line about “impending cracking of our support.” This makes sense coming from a Republican. The Dems certainly aren’t in that situation – the polls clearly show that the public is quite aware of who generated this problem and whose intransigence is keeping it going. The GOP doesn’t get to cheerlead for a shutdown for months and then run away from the consequences after they take us off a cliff. The cracking of support is certainly being felt by GOP politicians who are more and more openly rebelling against the hard right in the House and against the foolishness of Ted Cruz. And if they don’t stop the bleeding fairly soon, that cracking may get a lot louder. Further intransigence by the right wing can only result in a disaster for the GOP in the 2014 midterms – something that could hurt the party far more than they’re willing to publicly admit right now.
Kevin Koster commented on O’Reilly Exposes Ted Cruz’ Dishonesty
2013-10-02 13:23:04 -0400
· Flag
The GOP is of course desperately clinging to the Pew outlier that shows them only 3 points down. Let’s see how they deal with the next result.
O’Reilly did call Cruz on his intransigence, but he also made it clear that he agreed with Cruz’ position – that the ACA should be gutted by any means possible. O’Reilly just disagrees with Cruz’ tactics, which sounds like a standard iteration of the non-extreme version of the right wing position being held by Fox News, right wing radio and the GOP.
Cruz is frantically hanging on to the idea that somehow he can save face in this debacle if he never personally votes to end the problem. This is the same approach being taken by most of the hard right GOP congresspeople talking to Fox. Their intention is to continue to vote in a negative fashion so they can campaign on their intransigence later. In Cruz’ case, I now believe he’s positioning himself for a post-Senate career on Fox News, probably in the weekend Huckabee slot.
O’Reilly, on the other hand, is trying to sound like a reasonable guy in the middle of the road. And he’s not. He’s playing this just as sneaky as he did last week. Note that O’Reilly is calling for compromise – but only on GOP terms. O’Reilly’s idea of compromise has not changed since he first brought it up, even in the face of the GOP taking huge damage for shutting everything down. If everyone did O’Reilly’s idea, we’d see a situation where the ACA would essentially be delayed for another year – since most people would avoid dealing with any of it if they weren’t mandated to do so. We’d also see a situation where the program would go billions into debt due to losing the medical device tax as part of the great “compromise”. The GOP would then campaign on how expensive the ACA is, and would extend the delay to past the 2014 midterms. If they got their way completely, they would take the Senate and then, finally repeal the whole thing. It’s a long con, and to beat it, supporters of the ACA have to stay two steps ahead of the games that the GOP is playing.
The real compromise that needs to be reached is more likely going to be that the GOP will be forced to allow a clean CR to get a vote in the House. This will be followed by a clean increase in the Debt Ceiling, metered to carry past the midterms. Only after THAT will there be some conference committees in the House and Senate to discuss amendments to the ACA – and that assumes that the GOP really is ready to discuss amendments rather than just destroying the law. I believe that a bunch of the more extreme right wing GOP congresspeople may be facing primary challenges from the center, particularly if this standoff lasts another two to three weeks. And that may not be a bad thing.
The hard right really does need to be held accountable. They have spent five years acting like angry children, simply because they hated the President the people elected in 2008. This wasn’t a matter where the election in either 08 or 12 was in dispute, as was the case with Bush. This wasn’t a case where you had a recount showing that John McCain or Mitt Romney had actually won the crucial state involved, as was documented in late 2001 with Al Gore winning Florida in 2000 by the slimmest of margins. This was a case where the voters clearly decided they wanted Barack Obama to be their President, and the hard right simply couldn’t stomach it.
I also find it interesting that the hard right is also trying to play the game of saying that bad laws and bad judicial decisions can still be undone by Congress as part of their duty. That’s true, but we’re not talking about laws allowing slavery or the Dred Scott decision. We’re not talking about prohibition. We’re talking about an attempt to make health care affordable for millions of people who don’t have any coverage. I have issues with the ACA myself – I’m disappointed that President Obama caved on the public option. But I believe that we’ll get there within a few years and we’ll finally wind up with the Single Payer system that works in Canada and in much of the world, and this whole issue will finally be ended. Until then, the ACA will serve as a beginning step – at least acknowledging the severity of the problem.
I read someone noting correctly yesterday that the GOP’s fear about the ACA isn’t that it will hurt the country or generate problems. If they really thought that, they would get out of the way, let it go into effect and then campaign against the Democrats who supported it. It would be the best bit of politicking they could have done in the past 20 years. The real fear of the GOP is actually that it will become much more popular among Americans, essentially becoming a third wing of the major services of government, buttressing Medicare. Once people realize that the sky doesn’t fall with it, and that they can have coverage and go to a doctor without being bankrupted by one illness or problem, all the hysteria will fade – except of course for the Alex Jones crowd. Which will have exactly the opposite effect for the GOP – they’ll look silly for having opposed it, and their only recourse will be to continue to rail against “entitlements”. But that’s the corner into which they have backed themselves.
O’Reilly did call Cruz on his intransigence, but he also made it clear that he agreed with Cruz’ position – that the ACA should be gutted by any means possible. O’Reilly just disagrees with Cruz’ tactics, which sounds like a standard iteration of the non-extreme version of the right wing position being held by Fox News, right wing radio and the GOP.
Cruz is frantically hanging on to the idea that somehow he can save face in this debacle if he never personally votes to end the problem. This is the same approach being taken by most of the hard right GOP congresspeople talking to Fox. Their intention is to continue to vote in a negative fashion so they can campaign on their intransigence later. In Cruz’ case, I now believe he’s positioning himself for a post-Senate career on Fox News, probably in the weekend Huckabee slot.
O’Reilly, on the other hand, is trying to sound like a reasonable guy in the middle of the road. And he’s not. He’s playing this just as sneaky as he did last week. Note that O’Reilly is calling for compromise – but only on GOP terms. O’Reilly’s idea of compromise has not changed since he first brought it up, even in the face of the GOP taking huge damage for shutting everything down. If everyone did O’Reilly’s idea, we’d see a situation where the ACA would essentially be delayed for another year – since most people would avoid dealing with any of it if they weren’t mandated to do so. We’d also see a situation where the program would go billions into debt due to losing the medical device tax as part of the great “compromise”. The GOP would then campaign on how expensive the ACA is, and would extend the delay to past the 2014 midterms. If they got their way completely, they would take the Senate and then, finally repeal the whole thing. It’s a long con, and to beat it, supporters of the ACA have to stay two steps ahead of the games that the GOP is playing.
The real compromise that needs to be reached is more likely going to be that the GOP will be forced to allow a clean CR to get a vote in the House. This will be followed by a clean increase in the Debt Ceiling, metered to carry past the midterms. Only after THAT will there be some conference committees in the House and Senate to discuss amendments to the ACA – and that assumes that the GOP really is ready to discuss amendments rather than just destroying the law. I believe that a bunch of the more extreme right wing GOP congresspeople may be facing primary challenges from the center, particularly if this standoff lasts another two to three weeks. And that may not be a bad thing.
The hard right really does need to be held accountable. They have spent five years acting like angry children, simply because they hated the President the people elected in 2008. This wasn’t a matter where the election in either 08 or 12 was in dispute, as was the case with Bush. This wasn’t a case where you had a recount showing that John McCain or Mitt Romney had actually won the crucial state involved, as was documented in late 2001 with Al Gore winning Florida in 2000 by the slimmest of margins. This was a case where the voters clearly decided they wanted Barack Obama to be their President, and the hard right simply couldn’t stomach it.
I also find it interesting that the hard right is also trying to play the game of saying that bad laws and bad judicial decisions can still be undone by Congress as part of their duty. That’s true, but we’re not talking about laws allowing slavery or the Dred Scott decision. We’re not talking about prohibition. We’re talking about an attempt to make health care affordable for millions of people who don’t have any coverage. I have issues with the ACA myself – I’m disappointed that President Obama caved on the public option. But I believe that we’ll get there within a few years and we’ll finally wind up with the Single Payer system that works in Canada and in much of the world, and this whole issue will finally be ended. Until then, the ACA will serve as a beginning step – at least acknowledging the severity of the problem.
I read someone noting correctly yesterday that the GOP’s fear about the ACA isn’t that it will hurt the country or generate problems. If they really thought that, they would get out of the way, let it go into effect and then campaign against the Democrats who supported it. It would be the best bit of politicking they could have done in the past 20 years. The real fear of the GOP is actually that it will become much more popular among Americans, essentially becoming a third wing of the major services of government, buttressing Medicare. Once people realize that the sky doesn’t fall with it, and that they can have coverage and go to a doctor without being bankrupted by one illness or problem, all the hysteria will fade – except of course for the Alex Jones crowd. Which will have exactly the opposite effect for the GOP – they’ll look silly for having opposed it, and their only recourse will be to continue to rail against “entitlements”. But that’s the corner into which they have backed themselves.
Kevin Koster commented on Fox News Website Says Shutdown Is 'Slimdown'
2013-10-01 16:47:07 -0400
· Flag
This is just another example of what appears to be a right wing panic over the consequences they are now going to face for throwing a tantrum in public and not knowing how to gracefully back out of it. Their problem is that this tantrum is having real impact, since they’ve put the entire federal government into a situation where everyone is now painfully aware of the House GOP’s unwillingness to do its job.
Trying to call this a “slimdown” is just the latest attempt by Fox News and the right wing media to try to bolster their guys and minimize the real damage they are doing. I don’t know that this is going to fool anyone.
At this point, I think President Obama and the Senate are simply going to continue to make public statements calling on the GOP to do the right thing, and they’ll be happy to wait a couple of weeks for the GOP to come around. Doing so actually makes the whole Debt Ceiling issue easier, because it will mean that the GOP will be unable to shut everything down AGAIN, thus forcing them to act like reasonable people. The real question now is whether John Boehner will be able to do his job and convince his guys to do theirs. He’s already got the record of being perhaps the weakest Speaker we’ve ever had. Another public failure could see him getting tossed out in the midterms, if his own guys don’t throw him overboard first. I do think there’s a chance you’ll see a bunch of these hard right guys getting primaried from the center.
I’d be happy to get a bag of popcorn and enjoy the show if the House GOP hadn’t taken away the money for the popcorn.
Trying to call this a “slimdown” is just the latest attempt by Fox News and the right wing media to try to bolster their guys and minimize the real damage they are doing. I don’t know that this is going to fool anyone.
At this point, I think President Obama and the Senate are simply going to continue to make public statements calling on the GOP to do the right thing, and they’ll be happy to wait a couple of weeks for the GOP to come around. Doing so actually makes the whole Debt Ceiling issue easier, because it will mean that the GOP will be unable to shut everything down AGAIN, thus forcing them to act like reasonable people. The real question now is whether John Boehner will be able to do his job and convince his guys to do theirs. He’s already got the record of being perhaps the weakest Speaker we’ve ever had. Another public failure could see him getting tossed out in the midterms, if his own guys don’t throw him overboard first. I do think there’s a chance you’ll see a bunch of these hard right guys getting primaried from the center.
I’d be happy to get a bag of popcorn and enjoy the show if the House GOP hadn’t taken away the money for the popcorn.
Kevin Koster commented on Fox's Todd Starnes Asks: Will TSA Fondle Our Private Parts If Uncle Sam Shuts Down?
2013-10-01 02:51:03 -0400
· Flag
I have to wonder if the Tea Party understands what they’ve just done to themselves or if they are completely deluded.
Since they’ve just pressed the red button and generated the problem, they’ve now put the rest of Congress and President Obama into a position where any deal that gets made will need to encompass both this issue and the non sequitur of the Debt Ceiling. So they won’t be able to play the big cards they thought they had. And by petulantly insisting once again on attacking the ACA after the fact, they’ve put themselves into a position where they can be primaried from the more moderate side by politicians who can campaign on the angle of sanity.
This doesn’t change the fact that they’ve just done damage to our economy. But they may have just done far more damage, unwittingly, to themselves.
Since they’ve just pressed the red button and generated the problem, they’ve now put the rest of Congress and President Obama into a position where any deal that gets made will need to encompass both this issue and the non sequitur of the Debt Ceiling. So they won’t be able to play the big cards they thought they had. And by petulantly insisting once again on attacking the ACA after the fact, they’ve put themselves into a position where they can be primaried from the more moderate side by politicians who can campaign on the angle of sanity.
This doesn’t change the fact that they’ve just done damage to our economy. But they may have just done far more damage, unwittingly, to themselves.
Kevin Koster commented on President Obama's Statement On Looming Government Shutdown
2013-09-30 20:22:34 -0400
· Flag
It’s becoming clear that the closer we get to midnight, the more the right wing is beginning to panic. They can’t stop the ACA from going into effect, which means that they won’t be able to shut it down like they intended, but they’ve also walked themselves into a corner where they can’t back down without everyone seeing them cave.
And Fox News is doing its best to make sure that the government shuts down, telling House GOP members that passing a clean budget bill isn’t an option. At least, that’s what O’Reilly is telling them.
And Fox News is doing its best to make sure that the government shuts down, telling House GOP members that passing a clean budget bill isn’t an option. At least, that’s what O’Reilly is telling them.
Kevin Koster commented on Tea Party Senator Mike Lee Proves That Republicans Have No Plan To Cover Uninsured Americans, Despite Working To Destroy Obamacare
2013-09-30 12:00:29 -0400
· Flag
If you think about it, this entire move has been a bit more sneaky than you might think at first.
The GOP goal for this has always been to completely get rid of the ACA and thus fulfill their prediction of making President Obama appear to be a failure in the eyes of history. They’ve tried multiple times to repeal it completely, they’ve campaigned against it for office, they’ve run it up the legal system to try to get the Supreme Court to repeal it for them. None of those tactics have worked, so far.
So what do they do today? They threaten to hold up the country’s budget and shut everything down unless they can retroactively get their way again. Which they know isn’t going to happen. But what they could do is the O’Reilly idea – “let’s postpone the mandate and eliminate that tax and now we’ll have a compromise.” Right. What that means is that the GOP succeeds in partly defunding the ACA by removing the device tax – so that the GOP can campaign in 2014 about how expensive the ACA is and shouldn’t we get rid of it… And it means that with a full year delay and the GOP making the ACA as unpleasant as possible, the GOP could play this game again and delay the ACA into 2015. Which gives them the room to campaign against the ACA in a midterm election they’re more likely to win seats, and if they get a majority of the Senate, they can outright repeal the whole thing.
And if you pay attention to the tactics, that’s the endgame. Even people who have principled issues with the ACA acknowledge that they can be addressed with amendments and modifications. But the GOP doesn’t have a principled issue with the ACA – they simply want to get rid of it because it’s a signature of the Obama Presidency – something they’d like to erase or smear as much as they possibly can. So the way the President and the Democrats deal with the current issue will depend on whether they can head off the political chess moves the GOP are making.
The GOP goal for this has always been to completely get rid of the ACA and thus fulfill their prediction of making President Obama appear to be a failure in the eyes of history. They’ve tried multiple times to repeal it completely, they’ve campaigned against it for office, they’ve run it up the legal system to try to get the Supreme Court to repeal it for them. None of those tactics have worked, so far.
So what do they do today? They threaten to hold up the country’s budget and shut everything down unless they can retroactively get their way again. Which they know isn’t going to happen. But what they could do is the O’Reilly idea – “let’s postpone the mandate and eliminate that tax and now we’ll have a compromise.” Right. What that means is that the GOP succeeds in partly defunding the ACA by removing the device tax – so that the GOP can campaign in 2014 about how expensive the ACA is and shouldn’t we get rid of it… And it means that with a full year delay and the GOP making the ACA as unpleasant as possible, the GOP could play this game again and delay the ACA into 2015. Which gives them the room to campaign against the ACA in a midterm election they’re more likely to win seats, and if they get a majority of the Senate, they can outright repeal the whole thing.
And if you pay attention to the tactics, that’s the endgame. Even people who have principled issues with the ACA acknowledge that they can be addressed with amendments and modifications. But the GOP doesn’t have a principled issue with the ACA – they simply want to get rid of it because it’s a signature of the Obama Presidency – something they’d like to erase or smear as much as they possibly can. So the way the President and the Democrats deal with the current issue will depend on whether they can head off the political chess moves the GOP are making.
Kevin Koster commented on Sarah Palin Wins Our Most Outrageous Quote Poll
2013-09-30 00:37:18 -0400
· Flag
David, this simply doesn’t make sense. You still haven’t answered what I asked of you now five or six posts back. Is it that difficult?
This is an easy matter for you to resolve. Do you think it’s okay for right wingers to engage in “the politics of personal destruction” while you castigate left wingers for that behavior? I have issues with both sides doing so. You apparently do not, which is a surprising position for you to be taking. Could you please clarify the matter for all of us here? Thanks.
Also, after you read the extensive discussion of Sarah Palin’s issues at John Ziegler’s “The Sarah Palin I Know”, would you please be good enough to explain how she is above reproach, particularly after more of her own people have corroborated Mr. Ziegler’s points? And how do you answer the fact that Ted Cruz is not the fine unblemished person you wish him to be when we look at the multiple attacks he has made on politicians with whom he has disagreed? Keep in mind that he has had plenty of time in his career to make these attacks and not just the 21 hours he attempted to monopolize the microphone and the Senate’s time during a critical moment for our nation’s budget. And finally, I’m still waiting to hear how you were able to follow every minute of those 21 hours of Ted Cruz’s moment in the sun? Did you DVR the whole thing? Did you take breaks? Or did you show solidarity with Cruz and stick it out with him for 21 hours without stopping?
Getting to your latest post, which did not address the critical questions shown herein above, I find it strange that you’re continuing with the notion of abolishing the IRS and adopting a flat tax that would never be paid by anyone but the middle class individuals who couldn’t afford to avoid it. I actually did respond to your notion when I pointed out to you that it was unworkable. Please re-read the posts to check the longer statements of my reasoning. The short version is that under your scenario, the wealthy would never show purchases more than 50K in a year, thus avoiding paying any taxes. (And they can do this via corporate shelters and offshoring of their money so that nobody can be held responsible for these purchases.) So under your scenario, you’d have almost no money coming into the treasury and a situation where there wouldn’t even be enough money to pay the refunds you’re promising everyone. Which leads us to the other question you are continuing to avoid answering: Do you believe that public servants (Mayors, police, firefighters, congresspeople, Presidents) should all work as volunteers? Or do you believe that these should be private services? And in that case, who would pay for them, and what do we do about the millions of people who would be unable to afford to do so? Still waiting for your answer on that one too.
Your history of the 19th Century and of the New Deal is a bit sketchy, to use your own verbiage. The New Deal was by no means a failure other than for right wing pundits who hated the idea from the moment it was announced. (Curious coincidence that this is the same notion of Limbaugh’s desperate scream of “I HOPE HE FAILS!!!” about President Obama. Just because the right wing wishes something like this were true does not make it so.
Not sure where you’re going with the whole paragraph about big government and fear, but you’re ignoring something close to 150 years of this nation’s history. By your reckoning, having a safety net somehow stops people from taking risks. That’s an untenable notion. The point of a safety net is to make sure that people don’t wind up with nowhere to turn at all, and even with what little net we have, that’s still not an assured prospect these days, thanks to the cuts made during the Reagan Administration. The point of having regulation is that our history shows us that unregulated business and investment results in these boom and bust cycles. The cycles are driven by short-term interests of people who want immediate gratification and a quick return rather than anything that would help grow or nurture a society. After multiple cycles of this, our nation learned that regulation was necessary to keep the problem from continuing in as severe a manner as before, and to keep various unscrupulous businesses from exploiting people quite literally to death. (I refer you to the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire if you’re going to talk about the good will and good nature of unregulated businesses.) And this is something that went hand in hand with organized labor, which for decades was the only opposition to a completely unchecked version of capitalism that ran roughshod over all the employees.
Your assumption about skills leaves out the point that an unregulated business (whether that be by government or by labor contract) will pay the least it possibly can for whoever it can get. The person with the skills whom you refer to would be exploited for as much as the company could imagine, and if the person were to object, the company could throw that person away and find someone who didn’t complain. This isn’t a matter of “fear”. It’s a matter of the big guy stepping on the little guy. These are quite different issues, and your assumption leaves out the crucial material that plays those issues out in the real world.
This is an easy matter for you to resolve. Do you think it’s okay for right wingers to engage in “the politics of personal destruction” while you castigate left wingers for that behavior? I have issues with both sides doing so. You apparently do not, which is a surprising position for you to be taking. Could you please clarify the matter for all of us here? Thanks.
Also, after you read the extensive discussion of Sarah Palin’s issues at John Ziegler’s “The Sarah Palin I Know”, would you please be good enough to explain how she is above reproach, particularly after more of her own people have corroborated Mr. Ziegler’s points? And how do you answer the fact that Ted Cruz is not the fine unblemished person you wish him to be when we look at the multiple attacks he has made on politicians with whom he has disagreed? Keep in mind that he has had plenty of time in his career to make these attacks and not just the 21 hours he attempted to monopolize the microphone and the Senate’s time during a critical moment for our nation’s budget. And finally, I’m still waiting to hear how you were able to follow every minute of those 21 hours of Ted Cruz’s moment in the sun? Did you DVR the whole thing? Did you take breaks? Or did you show solidarity with Cruz and stick it out with him for 21 hours without stopping?
Getting to your latest post, which did not address the critical questions shown herein above, I find it strange that you’re continuing with the notion of abolishing the IRS and adopting a flat tax that would never be paid by anyone but the middle class individuals who couldn’t afford to avoid it. I actually did respond to your notion when I pointed out to you that it was unworkable. Please re-read the posts to check the longer statements of my reasoning. The short version is that under your scenario, the wealthy would never show purchases more than 50K in a year, thus avoiding paying any taxes. (And they can do this via corporate shelters and offshoring of their money so that nobody can be held responsible for these purchases.) So under your scenario, you’d have almost no money coming into the treasury and a situation where there wouldn’t even be enough money to pay the refunds you’re promising everyone. Which leads us to the other question you are continuing to avoid answering: Do you believe that public servants (Mayors, police, firefighters, congresspeople, Presidents) should all work as volunteers? Or do you believe that these should be private services? And in that case, who would pay for them, and what do we do about the millions of people who would be unable to afford to do so? Still waiting for your answer on that one too.
Your history of the 19th Century and of the New Deal is a bit sketchy, to use your own verbiage. The New Deal was by no means a failure other than for right wing pundits who hated the idea from the moment it was announced. (Curious coincidence that this is the same notion of Limbaugh’s desperate scream of “I HOPE HE FAILS!!!” about President Obama. Just because the right wing wishes something like this were true does not make it so.
Not sure where you’re going with the whole paragraph about big government and fear, but you’re ignoring something close to 150 years of this nation’s history. By your reckoning, having a safety net somehow stops people from taking risks. That’s an untenable notion. The point of a safety net is to make sure that people don’t wind up with nowhere to turn at all, and even with what little net we have, that’s still not an assured prospect these days, thanks to the cuts made during the Reagan Administration. The point of having regulation is that our history shows us that unregulated business and investment results in these boom and bust cycles. The cycles are driven by short-term interests of people who want immediate gratification and a quick return rather than anything that would help grow or nurture a society. After multiple cycles of this, our nation learned that regulation was necessary to keep the problem from continuing in as severe a manner as before, and to keep various unscrupulous businesses from exploiting people quite literally to death. (I refer you to the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire if you’re going to talk about the good will and good nature of unregulated businesses.) And this is something that went hand in hand with organized labor, which for decades was the only opposition to a completely unchecked version of capitalism that ran roughshod over all the employees.
Your assumption about skills leaves out the point that an unregulated business (whether that be by government or by labor contract) will pay the least it possibly can for whoever it can get. The person with the skills whom you refer to would be exploited for as much as the company could imagine, and if the person were to object, the company could throw that person away and find someone who didn’t complain. This isn’t a matter of “fear”. It’s a matter of the big guy stepping on the little guy. These are quite different issues, and your assumption leaves out the crucial material that plays those issues out in the real world.