Kevin Koster commented on Hannity's "Pro-Life" Propaganda Interview Compares Women To Sea Turtles?
2013-06-16 15:25:58 -0400
· Flag
I wonder if anyone remembers Hannity’s reactions when celebrities and athletes refused invitations to the Bush White House. Did Hannity support their decision with the same respect for their rights that he’s showing here? Or did he perhaps make comments about them being unpatriotic? Just asking…
Kevin Koster commented on Megyn Kelly Legitimizes Ted Cruz’s McCarthyism
2013-06-16 15:23:37 -0400
· Flag
Cruz is deliberately being outrageous and Fox News is encouraging the behavior. I have a feeling you’ll see him following Allen West onto the airwaves after his short Senate career is over. If you think about it, he’s taking a pretty smart approach – get some visibility riling up the right wing base while doing nothing in Congress, and then parlay that notoriety into millions on the media and personal appearance train. Hasn’t been a bad thing for Sarah Palin, no reason it can’t work for Cruz.
Kevin Koster commented on Neil Cavuto Loses It WIth Democrat Julian Epstein
2013-06-08 18:49:32 -0400
· Flag
Cavuto’s scream about cutting the mike belies the entire “fair and balanced” myth, doesn’t it? He can’t have it both ways. He can’t scream at his guest, talk over him and then cut his microphone, and also say that he’s been listening. Cavuto clearly only wanted to hear a pre-programmed answer that would fit his already-formed opinion. It’s a shame that he is unable to listen to the guests he invites onto his program.
Kevin Koster commented on Rep. McDermott To Megyn Kelly: Stop Putting (Republican) Words In My Mouth About IRS Hearing
2013-06-05 20:00:40 -0400
· Flag
The entire exchange was titled by Kelly with the repeated references to the “good Americans” who were complaining about not getting their tax exempt status. Kelly had no answer to the facts McDermott brought up, particularly to the fact that the only group that didn’t get the exemption was a liberal group.
Kevin Koster commented on Bob Woodward Helps O’Reilly Suggest The IRS Controversy Is President Obama’s Watergate
2013-06-04 12:06:08 -0400
· Flag
Woodward certainly knows better than this. Frankly, I can only think that he’s just leaning farther and farther over to the right as he gets older.
As Woodward should have been able to respond, Watergate was but one example of many of outright criminality going on in the Nixon Administration. This wasn’t a matter of bureaucrats, policy differences or paperwork. Nixon’s people were grafting, stealing, moving money and pulling all kinds of dirty tricks. Breaking into the office at the Watergate Hotel was just the tip of the iceberg, and it was part of a much broader set of behavior. Woodward knows this, since he and Bernstein broke most of that story at the time. And not only was the behavior illegal, but Nixon was personally involved in it, as his own office tapes confirmed. When the heat got to be too much, he did the infamous “I am not a crook” talk – but even this was a lie. Nixon was absolutely a crook, and so were many of the people in his employ.
We faced this again with the Iran/Contra matter, which was arguably more serious than Watergate in that you had a bunch of people inside the Reagan White House violating not only the Congress but also several pre-existing laws in order to achieve their own agenda. As Caspar Weinberger pointed out at the time, it was illegal for Reagan and his people to sell weapons to Iran, even if he washed them through Israel. (The infamous exchange was preserved by the National Security Archive – wherein Weinberger told Reagan at a cabinet briefing in 1985 that this was illegal. Reagan answered “I can handle the illegality, Cap. But I don’t think the American people can handle that Ronald Reagan didn’t do anything to get the hostages out.” To which Weinberger famously answered: “Visiting hours are on Thursdays, Mr. President.”) Compounding the criminality was the decision to then take the money from these illegal sales and send it to the Contras in Nicaragua, in direct violation of the Congress and the Boland Amendment. As before, the record wound up showing a serious amount of blatant criminality, which frankly should have resulted in Reagan’s impeachment or resignation. People forget this in all the hagiography about how great the Reagan presidency was. As it was, Reagan was able to weather the storm long enough to get out of office without having to endure the disgrace Nixon did.
But this was not what the Reagan people tried to call the “criminalization of policy differences”. It was the pursuit of a criminal policy via criminal means.
The current matters facing President Obama really pale in comparison. You have Benghazi, which was already investigated and found to be a matter of State Department people getting caught flatfooted in the middle of a region-wide riot. You have the IRS matter, which is mostly a situation of filing and sorting that the right wing would like people to think is some kind of sinister plot. (Except for the fact that nobody was prevented from running their political ads, least of all in Ohio, which was inundated with Tea Party materials for the whole time from 2010 through 2012) And you have the press matter, which is sadly legal under the Patriot Act and the Espionage Act, the former of which was loudly supported by AM radio and Fox News under Bush. So I am forced to ask in looking for the deadly scandal that Fox News insists is here: “Where’s the beef?”
As Woodward should have been able to respond, Watergate was but one example of many of outright criminality going on in the Nixon Administration. This wasn’t a matter of bureaucrats, policy differences or paperwork. Nixon’s people were grafting, stealing, moving money and pulling all kinds of dirty tricks. Breaking into the office at the Watergate Hotel was just the tip of the iceberg, and it was part of a much broader set of behavior. Woodward knows this, since he and Bernstein broke most of that story at the time. And not only was the behavior illegal, but Nixon was personally involved in it, as his own office tapes confirmed. When the heat got to be too much, he did the infamous “I am not a crook” talk – but even this was a lie. Nixon was absolutely a crook, and so were many of the people in his employ.
We faced this again with the Iran/Contra matter, which was arguably more serious than Watergate in that you had a bunch of people inside the Reagan White House violating not only the Congress but also several pre-existing laws in order to achieve their own agenda. As Caspar Weinberger pointed out at the time, it was illegal for Reagan and his people to sell weapons to Iran, even if he washed them through Israel. (The infamous exchange was preserved by the National Security Archive – wherein Weinberger told Reagan at a cabinet briefing in 1985 that this was illegal. Reagan answered “I can handle the illegality, Cap. But I don’t think the American people can handle that Ronald Reagan didn’t do anything to get the hostages out.” To which Weinberger famously answered: “Visiting hours are on Thursdays, Mr. President.”) Compounding the criminality was the decision to then take the money from these illegal sales and send it to the Contras in Nicaragua, in direct violation of the Congress and the Boland Amendment. As before, the record wound up showing a serious amount of blatant criminality, which frankly should have resulted in Reagan’s impeachment or resignation. People forget this in all the hagiography about how great the Reagan presidency was. As it was, Reagan was able to weather the storm long enough to get out of office without having to endure the disgrace Nixon did.
But this was not what the Reagan people tried to call the “criminalization of policy differences”. It was the pursuit of a criminal policy via criminal means.
The current matters facing President Obama really pale in comparison. You have Benghazi, which was already investigated and found to be a matter of State Department people getting caught flatfooted in the middle of a region-wide riot. You have the IRS matter, which is mostly a situation of filing and sorting that the right wing would like people to think is some kind of sinister plot. (Except for the fact that nobody was prevented from running their political ads, least of all in Ohio, which was inundated with Tea Party materials for the whole time from 2010 through 2012) And you have the press matter, which is sadly legal under the Patriot Act and the Espionage Act, the former of which was loudly supported by AM radio and Fox News under Bush. So I am forced to ask in looking for the deadly scandal that Fox News insists is here: “Where’s the beef?”
Kevin Koster commented on Fox's Dr. Keith Ablow: Benghazi Was Part Of Some 'Black Ops' Psychological Warfare Against Americans
2013-06-04 11:44:50 -0400
· Flag
This is a case of projection by Fox News. I would agree that Fox News desperately needs stories like this on an emotional level, and that they are hoping to parlay this. The whole idea is to repeat trivial questions and assertions and then tie them together into a seemingly organic whole. Done enough times, they can pretend that they’ve established a “history” of “corruption” and/or “sinister behavior”. Thankfully, there are sites like this one to correct the record and rebut these guys every time they do it. It’s like playing whack-a-mole, but it’s necessary.
Kevin Koster commented on Steve Doocy Lets The Interns Know They Should Hate Attorney General Eric Holder
2013-06-04 11:40:58 -0400
· Flag
If Fox News really thinks it’s being persecuted, someone should think about researching the very real issues that social justice and protest groups faced with Hoover’s FBI back in the day.
Kevin Koster commented on Before You Make Megyn Kelly A Hero For Challenging Erick Erickson’s Sexist Comments…
2013-06-02 19:35:28 -0400
· Flag
Ellen,
Yes, I should have been a little more specific about Kirsten Powers’ eruption at Jesse Lee Peterson. That was the moment I was referencing. I believe strongly that she was talked to very quickly after that appearance and told to tone it down. I don’t know this for a fact, but her status as a paid contributor on multiple Fox News shows cannot have been helped by her essentially taking over a segment on Hannity’s show. I find it interesting that since that time she’s mostly toed whatever line Hannity or O’Reilly or whoever is peddling each week. Like I said, I don’t know this for a fact, but I don’t think it’s a coincidence.
Regarding Megyn Kelly, the more I think about her situation at Fox News, the more I conclude that she’s been positioning herself to take over Greta’s timeslot when that comes up. Assuming that ratings trends hold over the next couple of years, I could easily see Kelly getting the cushy primetime gig either just before the 2016 Election hijinks get going, or just after that business is concluded. For this reason, I agree with your statements – she’s going to be careful about what she does on the air to not jeopardize that position. I doubt you’ll see her go off the handle like she did with Powers a couple of years back about the Black Panthers. I’d expect her to be on her best behavior, and if she needs to vent like this, I’m sure she’s had it approved by the higher-ups.
Yes, I should have been a little more specific about Kirsten Powers’ eruption at Jesse Lee Peterson. That was the moment I was referencing. I believe strongly that she was talked to very quickly after that appearance and told to tone it down. I don’t know this for a fact, but her status as a paid contributor on multiple Fox News shows cannot have been helped by her essentially taking over a segment on Hannity’s show. I find it interesting that since that time she’s mostly toed whatever line Hannity or O’Reilly or whoever is peddling each week. Like I said, I don’t know this for a fact, but I don’t think it’s a coincidence.
Regarding Megyn Kelly, the more I think about her situation at Fox News, the more I conclude that she’s been positioning herself to take over Greta’s timeslot when that comes up. Assuming that ratings trends hold over the next couple of years, I could easily see Kelly getting the cushy primetime gig either just before the 2016 Election hijinks get going, or just after that business is concluded. For this reason, I agree with your statements – she’s going to be careful about what she does on the air to not jeopardize that position. I doubt you’ll see her go off the handle like she did with Powers a couple of years back about the Black Panthers. I’d expect her to be on her best behavior, and if she needs to vent like this, I’m sure she’s had it approved by the higher-ups.
Kevin Koster commented on Bill O’Reilly Threatens To Boycott Mexico And ‘Collapse Their Economy’
2013-05-30 18:17:24 -0400
· Flag
I have a feeling this matter will get tossed very quickly, and that O’Reilly will try to take credit for it. This isn’t the same thing as the guy last year – that was a situation where the guy blatantly violated Mexican law. This is a scenario where the Mexican officials will want to wash their hands of this and get her out of there.
Kevin Koster commented on Megyn Kelly Whitewashes Her History Of Helping To Demonize Trayvon Martin
2013-05-31 21:27:22 -0400
· Flag
Bemused, thank you thank you for asking Harry to stop with the constant repetitions of the swamping material.
Fred, that’s an interesting perspective. Not everyone disciplines their kids in the same way. We’ve already discussed in another thread that Trayvon Martin wasn’t thinking that clearly at the moment he was being stalked by Zimmerman. He was scared and his girlfriend was repeatedly calling him on his cell phone and telling him to run. You could argue for days about why he didn’t call the police himself, but it doesn’t sound like he had the presence of mind to do that. You’re also assuming that Martin initiated the fight with Zimmerman, when the witness accounts indicate it was the other way around. Are you saying that it would have been okay if Martin was attacked and then just stood there getting punched out by Zimmerman? The indications are that Zimmerman picked a fight and then clearly started losing it – at which point he pulled the gun and shot Martin to death.
Fred, that’s an interesting perspective. Not everyone disciplines their kids in the same way. We’ve already discussed in another thread that Trayvon Martin wasn’t thinking that clearly at the moment he was being stalked by Zimmerman. He was scared and his girlfriend was repeatedly calling him on his cell phone and telling him to run. You could argue for days about why he didn’t call the police himself, but it doesn’t sound like he had the presence of mind to do that. You’re also assuming that Martin initiated the fight with Zimmerman, when the witness accounts indicate it was the other way around. Are you saying that it would have been okay if Martin was attacked and then just stood there getting punched out by Zimmerman? The indications are that Zimmerman picked a fight and then clearly started losing it – at which point he pulled the gun and shot Martin to death.
Kevin Koster commented on Rivera To Bolling: You’re Making The President Look Like A Murderer With Your False Benghazi Narrative
2013-05-28 18:50:55 -0400
· Flag
Bolling’s knee-jerk reaction of repeatedly shouting the same discredited talking points and then hanging up sounds eerily familiar. We’ve been getting the same response right here on other threads when trolls come in to crash the boards…
Kevin Koster commented on Fr. Jonathan Morris Uses Creationism Discussion To Pimp School Vouchers Over 'Flawed' Public School System'
2013-05-27 23:28:37 -0400
· Flag
Bemused does make a good point. It may be a good idea to discuss creationism as one of the ideas people accepted before Darwin proved the Theory of Evolution. It probably can’t hurt for a teacher to mention that various churches have the opinion that everything was created – and then to say that students can learn more about this at their various churches rather than in science class. That might be a decent option.
Kevin Koster commented on Bob Dole: Republicans Should Put Up A Sign 'Closed For Repairs'
2013-05-27 14:08:31 -0400
· Flag
Dole continues to be a very sly politician, even 17 years out of office. Asked about Newt Gingrich, he gives him the expected praise for being smart, and then notes how Newt could never contain himself after scrapping his way to the top. And Dole throws in one pretty sharp dig – “I’m glad he wasn’t our nominee” with a little grin. That’s an unsubtle dig – that Dole crowned his career by getting a Presidential nomination but Gingrich, who fancied himself more powerful than Dole, will never be able to say that. Cruel. True, but cruel.
Kevin Koster commented on Megyn Kelly Helps George Zimmerman Demonize Trayvon Martin
2013-05-28 20:09:51 -0400
· Flag
I’m pleased that if we’re going to have topped 150 posts (Oy…), that Bemused was able to take us over the top.
Mj, I think you’re right – I’m probably answering my own question within the thought. I just wanted to give him a chance to have some other reason to justify his behavior.
Harry Ball, you have once again tried to swamp the thread, and I suppose you must get some credit for persistence in the attempt. But almost all of your statements are repetitions of the same things you’ve already failed to prove.
To answer your issues in order:
“1. Mr.Zimmerman committed no crime that night before he was battered.” – This assumes that he didn’t instigate the situation by stalking and confronting Trayvon Martin. According to Witness 8, he approached and confronted Martin as a precursor to the fight that was heard by all the other witnesses. And the other witnesses heard the arguing, which would not have been happening had Zimmerman simply been jumped by Martin. So you’re stating a fact not in evidence, and you may actually be stating something that’s the reverse of what we’ve been discussing here.
" 2. The gun was fired from where Mr.Zimmerman said it was." I think you’re right about this. But it’s irrelevant where Zimmerman fired the gun. What’s relevant is THAT he fired the gun, when he should never have been in the situation in the first place. “3. Mr.Zimmerman was injured and the injuries are consistent with being battered.” I think you’re right about this, but that doesn’t tell the whole story, does it? Even if Zimmerman and Martin got in a fight that Zimmerman was losing, does that justify Zimmerman killing Martin? Particularly when the fight was caused by Zimmerman’s stalking and confronting of someone who was committing no crime?
" 4. The kid wasn’t hit, grabbed or struck in any way by Mr.Zimmerman." You don’t know this. You only know that the only bruising that was found on Trayvon was on the knuckles, from where he was clearly hitting Zimmerman. You don’t know that he wasn’t grabbed or struck otherwise. You don’t know what Zimmerman did, because you weren’t there and you’re relying only on the testimony of Zimmerman, who has already contradicted himself. “5. Witnesses corroborate Mr.Zimmerman’s account of being battered.” This is true, but irrelevant. Yes, he was in a fight with Martin that he was apparently losing. Same question as before. Does this give him the right to kill Martin? “6. Mr.Zimmerman was going back to his vehicle not chasing the kid down.” You don’t know this either. You hope this is the case, but you don’t know it. And Witness 8’s testimony says that he was actually approaching Martin in the dark, not moving away from him.
“7. The kid either didn’t leave or he came back, he didn’t try to go home.” Witness 8’s testimony says that he tried to run away and then stopped in the dark, thinking he’d lost Zimmerman. Witness 8 makes clear that he wasn’t going for the front door, which is understandable as nobody would want to give a stalker their address. Witness 8’s account of the confrontation has Zimmerman catching up to Martin and thus instigating a confrontation.
“8. Mr.Zimmerman feared for his life.” This probably is true, but it’s irrelevant. Trayvon Martin was fearing for his life as well. And what happened? Zimmerman killed him. “9.Mr.Zimmerman didn’t stalk the kid.” The testimony by the witnesses indicates that he did. He went looking for Martin after he lost him in the dark, following the last direction he saw him take and clearly came upon him very quickly after hanging up on the police dispatcher who told him not to do so. Had Zimmerman not done this, there would have been no fight and no killing. This is likely to be a major point in the trial. “10. Mr.Zimmerman didn’t start the physical altercation.” You don’t know that. You hope that he didn’t, you mean to say. From what Witness 8 says, he started a confrontation that led right into the fight. From what the other witnesses have said, there was arguing going on before the shouts for help. Which puts Zimmerman’s entire account in doubt. Hopefully, Zimmerman will come clean during the trial and tell us the full story of what happened.
“I have not whacked at anyone on here for the last 3 days after the mod warned me. Quit lying.” I find it interesting that Harry keeps trying to say that he isn’t insulting me, while at the same time he repeatedly calls me a liar. He tells me to provide more examples of where I’m getting my reasoning from, which sounds like he just wants me to repeat the same spread of material he continues to do. I’m trying to answer his more recent repetitons without subjecting everyone to an endless post of quotes of what can already be found on multiple submissions of mine to this thread. If Harry were to look at my prior submissions, he could find exactly what he was asking for here. But I believe he knows that.
At the same time, I find it interesting that Harry wants to again discuss the text messages which were provided by the prosecution to the defense, and which the defense is trying to publicize. Somehow, the providing of this material, which Harry has admitted the prosecution has done when he’s wanted to pin the material on them, is somehow a stall. It isn’t. It’s called Discovery. The stall tactic is the defense team asking for the trial to be delayed. Further, we had the hearing today which didn’t go well for the defense, but that’s another story.
It sounds like Harry is hoping that somehow the defense will be able to get the jury to believe that Zimmerman was completely the victim in this situation. Given the contradictions we have repeatedly pointed out in Zimmerman’s testimony, this doesn’t sound likely. One never knows in a jury trial, and it does sound like the defense team is doing what they can to try to get a change in venue or whatever they can get in order to get their client out of this mess. And maybe they’ll succeed. But it’s quite likely that the discussion in a couple of months will be about what sentence is handed down, and how the right wing media reacts to it. If it’s anything like the Ramos & Compean matter, it won’t be pretty. Of course, with Ramos & Compean, they didn’t know about the case until after it was all over. With this case, they’ve had a whole year to try to assemble their talking points. It’s just unfortunate that this is all they’ve come up with after that amount of time.
Mj, I think you’re right – I’m probably answering my own question within the thought. I just wanted to give him a chance to have some other reason to justify his behavior.
Harry Ball, you have once again tried to swamp the thread, and I suppose you must get some credit for persistence in the attempt. But almost all of your statements are repetitions of the same things you’ve already failed to prove.
To answer your issues in order:
“1. Mr.Zimmerman committed no crime that night before he was battered.” – This assumes that he didn’t instigate the situation by stalking and confronting Trayvon Martin. According to Witness 8, he approached and confronted Martin as a precursor to the fight that was heard by all the other witnesses. And the other witnesses heard the arguing, which would not have been happening had Zimmerman simply been jumped by Martin. So you’re stating a fact not in evidence, and you may actually be stating something that’s the reverse of what we’ve been discussing here.
" 2. The gun was fired from where Mr.Zimmerman said it was." I think you’re right about this. But it’s irrelevant where Zimmerman fired the gun. What’s relevant is THAT he fired the gun, when he should never have been in the situation in the first place. “3. Mr.Zimmerman was injured and the injuries are consistent with being battered.” I think you’re right about this, but that doesn’t tell the whole story, does it? Even if Zimmerman and Martin got in a fight that Zimmerman was losing, does that justify Zimmerman killing Martin? Particularly when the fight was caused by Zimmerman’s stalking and confronting of someone who was committing no crime?
" 4. The kid wasn’t hit, grabbed or struck in any way by Mr.Zimmerman." You don’t know this. You only know that the only bruising that was found on Trayvon was on the knuckles, from where he was clearly hitting Zimmerman. You don’t know that he wasn’t grabbed or struck otherwise. You don’t know what Zimmerman did, because you weren’t there and you’re relying only on the testimony of Zimmerman, who has already contradicted himself. “5. Witnesses corroborate Mr.Zimmerman’s account of being battered.” This is true, but irrelevant. Yes, he was in a fight with Martin that he was apparently losing. Same question as before. Does this give him the right to kill Martin? “6. Mr.Zimmerman was going back to his vehicle not chasing the kid down.” You don’t know this either. You hope this is the case, but you don’t know it. And Witness 8’s testimony says that he was actually approaching Martin in the dark, not moving away from him.
“7. The kid either didn’t leave or he came back, he didn’t try to go home.” Witness 8’s testimony says that he tried to run away and then stopped in the dark, thinking he’d lost Zimmerman. Witness 8 makes clear that he wasn’t going for the front door, which is understandable as nobody would want to give a stalker their address. Witness 8’s account of the confrontation has Zimmerman catching up to Martin and thus instigating a confrontation.
“8. Mr.Zimmerman feared for his life.” This probably is true, but it’s irrelevant. Trayvon Martin was fearing for his life as well. And what happened? Zimmerman killed him. “9.Mr.Zimmerman didn’t stalk the kid.” The testimony by the witnesses indicates that he did. He went looking for Martin after he lost him in the dark, following the last direction he saw him take and clearly came upon him very quickly after hanging up on the police dispatcher who told him not to do so. Had Zimmerman not done this, there would have been no fight and no killing. This is likely to be a major point in the trial. “10. Mr.Zimmerman didn’t start the physical altercation.” You don’t know that. You hope that he didn’t, you mean to say. From what Witness 8 says, he started a confrontation that led right into the fight. From what the other witnesses have said, there was arguing going on before the shouts for help. Which puts Zimmerman’s entire account in doubt. Hopefully, Zimmerman will come clean during the trial and tell us the full story of what happened.
“I have not whacked at anyone on here for the last 3 days after the mod warned me. Quit lying.” I find it interesting that Harry keeps trying to say that he isn’t insulting me, while at the same time he repeatedly calls me a liar. He tells me to provide more examples of where I’m getting my reasoning from, which sounds like he just wants me to repeat the same spread of material he continues to do. I’m trying to answer his more recent repetitons without subjecting everyone to an endless post of quotes of what can already be found on multiple submissions of mine to this thread. If Harry were to look at my prior submissions, he could find exactly what he was asking for here. But I believe he knows that.
At the same time, I find it interesting that Harry wants to again discuss the text messages which were provided by the prosecution to the defense, and which the defense is trying to publicize. Somehow, the providing of this material, which Harry has admitted the prosecution has done when he’s wanted to pin the material on them, is somehow a stall. It isn’t. It’s called Discovery. The stall tactic is the defense team asking for the trial to be delayed. Further, we had the hearing today which didn’t go well for the defense, but that’s another story.
It sounds like Harry is hoping that somehow the defense will be able to get the jury to believe that Zimmerman was completely the victim in this situation. Given the contradictions we have repeatedly pointed out in Zimmerman’s testimony, this doesn’t sound likely. One never knows in a jury trial, and it does sound like the defense team is doing what they can to try to get a change in venue or whatever they can get in order to get their client out of this mess. And maybe they’ll succeed. But it’s quite likely that the discussion in a couple of months will be about what sentence is handed down, and how the right wing media reacts to it. If it’s anything like the Ramos & Compean matter, it won’t be pretty. Of course, with Ramos & Compean, they didn’t know about the case until after it was all over. With this case, they’ve had a whole year to try to assemble their talking points. It’s just unfortunate that this is all they’ve come up with after that amount of time.
Kevin Koster commented on Megyn Kelly Freaks Out During Interview With Gosnell Attorney
2013-05-24 13:55:53 -0400
· Flag
You didn’t answer the question. Are you advocating that people kill doctors? Are you advocating murder? That’s a Yes or No question. All you need to do is give us one of the two.
And you should do some actual research on abortion. It is not “baby killing”. It is a medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy, almost always in the early stages, for a variety of reasons. Many times, the reasons have to do with a real threat to the health or even the life of a mother. Other times, the fetus is the result of an attack on the mother. Other times, the fetus has developed such severe problems that it cannot survive. This is not the black-and-white issue you are presenting it to be. Or is it your position that women should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth at the risk of their own lives, even when the baby will either be challenged to even survive or when the baby is the result of the mother being brutally attacked? You’re not calling those women names for having a medical procedure that likely would save their lives, are you?
And you should do some actual research on abortion. It is not “baby killing”. It is a medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy, almost always in the early stages, for a variety of reasons. Many times, the reasons have to do with a real threat to the health or even the life of a mother. Other times, the fetus is the result of an attack on the mother. Other times, the fetus has developed such severe problems that it cannot survive. This is not the black-and-white issue you are presenting it to be. Or is it your position that women should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth at the risk of their own lives, even when the baby will either be challenged to even survive or when the baby is the result of the mother being brutally attacked? You’re not calling those women names for having a medical procedure that likely would save their lives, are you?
Kevin Koster commented on Monica Crowley Conspiracy Theory Of The Day: Obama’s ‘Attack’ On The Bill Of Rights
2013-05-24 13:08:15 -0400
· Flag
This was typical of the Fox News reaction to yesterday’s speech. Eric Bolling repeated what must have been a “Memo of the Day” line – that over the Memorial Day weekend, “most Americans” will be “talking about the scandals while they’re at the barbecues”. Riiight. What I think he meant to say was that Fox News is panicking that most people aren’t really jumping on their bandwagon here. President Obama’s approval rating remains around 53 percent and even Fox News has had to admit that polling shows low interest in anything but the IRS matter, for obvious reasons.
What we’re seeing is the predictable ebb after Fox News enjoyed a brief sizzle as news viewers had their initial “Whaaaa” reaction to the stories as they broke. And this is because the stories simply don’t have enough legs to them. The IRS story may continue for a bit as it looks like there was a fair amount of internal bumbling going on, but we’re not looking at anything like the criminality that Fox News is desperately trying to allege. Even Fox News viewers have to be wondering how many times the network is going to cry wolf like this.
They tried this with Joe Sestak – except that it turns out that nothing illegal happened and the story pfftted away. They tried this with Fast & Furious and even tried to make it an election year issue – except that they badly misrepresented what happened and were unable to do anything but throw a tantrum in public. Now they want to see if they can triple stack or quadruple stack their latest attempts.
Let’s see. They played Benghazi as something about the President being weak on foreign policy and somehow allowing a terrorist attack to result in Four. Dead. Americans. And they tried to make a story out of what talking points were developed for news program appearances right afterward. Except that even their audience understood that this whole matter was completely discussed last fall – most crucially when Mitt Romney humiliated himself by trying to pull a “gotcha!” at the end of the second debate. And we all know that there were far more Americans who died in assaults like these on consulates and embassies during the George W. Bush Administration. And we know that the Benghazi assault happened in the midst of a week of complete chaos in the region as a result of the video that the right wing keeps trying to forget about. So in the end, what does Fox News have in the Benghazi story? The same emails they had six months ago, the same disproven allegations, and the same disgruntled guys who were complaining about what was happening when it was relevant. So no story here. Yet Fox continues to push it, hoping they can keep fanning it, like Joe Sestak, until a better story comes along. The most desperate form of this idea came with Chris Wallace embarassing himself last weekend by demanding to know which room the President happened to be in at each point during the night of September 11th last year, something that Bill O’Reilly somehow thinks is an important issue, for reasons only he can fathom. As Obama’s advisor pointed out, that’s irrelevant. And I think even Fox News knows that.
They’ve played the IRS story as some kind of conspiracy theory of President Obama somehow telling his guys not to allow Tea Party groups to interfere with his re-election. Riiiggght. Except that the testimony and records we’ve seen don’t show that. They show that the IRS officials were dealing with an avalanche of political groups trying to take advantage of the Citizens United ruling, and given that this was a time when the right wingers were desperate to somehow unseat Obama, there was a flood of Tea Party applications for tax exempt status. What the right wing is forgetting here is that these groups still put up plenty of commercials and gatherings to promote their cause, and many of them did in fact achieve tax-exempt status. They just didn’t like what looks like extra scrutiny, and I’d agree that this wasn’t fair. But it didn’t by any means prevent them from speaking at all, nor could it have done so. This was a money matter, and more precisely, a clerical matter. This was a discussion of sorting and filing among bureaucrats.
So the whole question about when the President found out about all the bumbling and internal reviews in the IRS is an odd one. The President doesn’t interfere with the IRS and has stated as such. His people may have started to hear about the matter, but they weren’t going to get him involved in that kind of thing as it would be like getting Donald Trump involved in the job application forms at his casino. Obviously, when President Obama found out, he was angry about it. And we’re now seeing the usual bureaucratic dance of forced resignations, stalls, suspensions, etc. That will play out over another few weeks, and that’ll be it. But the idea that somehow this turned the election is silly on its face. Ohio saw a record amount of advertising and politicking going on within its borders over the last election cycle. The Romney campaign spent a massive amount there, as did all the GOP groups. Ohio residents were DELUGED with materials. And the Tea Party groups in question still participated in the deluge. The discussion here isn’t whether they could speak – it’s about when they were able to tell their supporters they could deduct their donations.
By the way, it’s interesting to hear the right wing complain that left wingers would be up in arms if something like this happened under a GOP presidency. They’re absolutely right – because there WAS suppression of left wing groups under the George W. Bush administration. I find it strange that the right wing forgets that protesters during Bush’s terms were regularly called traitors and worse, that the left wing was accused of “not supporting our troops”, that Bush’s press secretary told Americans they “should watch what they do, watch what they say” and that even Bush himself announced “You’re either with us, or you’re with the terrorists.” The right wing wants people to forget about the Joe Wilson matter, where a diplomat and his wife were targeted by the Bush people for Wilson’s public statements about Bush lies that helped lead the country to war with Iraq. At the time that all this was happening, I don’t recall Fox News or any AM radio pundits sticking up for the rights of the protesters by any means. And those protesters didn’t have the money behind them that the Tea Party groups do. I agree that it’s unfair for the Tea Party groups to have been asked to produce more paperwork, and I think it’s appropriate that the matter was corrected. But that doesn’t mean they didn’t get to speak, and by no means did this paperwork somehow turn an election.
The DOJ issue with the reporters is actually unravelling for Fox News, so they’re falling back on the Rosen story to see if they can get traction there. Because the AP phone records matter was legal under the Patriot Act, and apparently under the Espionage Act, as even Fox News has been forced to admit. Even Jay Sekulow, in the midst of a ridiculous segment with Juan Williams last night, was compelled to admit that the AP had violated national security laws in their conduct, thus generating a problem for themselves. As pointed out here, the facts show that Rosen also bumbled his way into this situation – and he’s lucky that the DOJ doesn’t want to push the matter. Of course, this won’t stop Fox News from pushing the matter in the other direction. But I don’t know if they want to push too hard here – if all the materials of what Rosen was doing were to come out publicly, I don’t think it will paint him or Fox News in a very good light.
It’s ironic to me that Fox News is so desperately trying to pump these matters up. It’s also ironic that while they are trying to smear President Obama, they are simultaneously trying to elevate not only George W. Bush but also Richard Nixon. One of the “news” hours yesterday included a sentimental piece about veterans and soldiers visiting the Nixon White House for Memorial Day, talking about how the soldiers will never forget visiting Richard Nixon in his study and what a great time it all was. I can understand celebrating a visit to the White House for Memorial Day – but the NIXON White House? (And I’ll try to stay out of the total rewrite of history they were doing about how Nixon “kept his promise and got us out of the Vietnam War”…)
What we’re seeing is the predictable ebb after Fox News enjoyed a brief sizzle as news viewers had their initial “Whaaaa” reaction to the stories as they broke. And this is because the stories simply don’t have enough legs to them. The IRS story may continue for a bit as it looks like there was a fair amount of internal bumbling going on, but we’re not looking at anything like the criminality that Fox News is desperately trying to allege. Even Fox News viewers have to be wondering how many times the network is going to cry wolf like this.
They tried this with Joe Sestak – except that it turns out that nothing illegal happened and the story pfftted away. They tried this with Fast & Furious and even tried to make it an election year issue – except that they badly misrepresented what happened and were unable to do anything but throw a tantrum in public. Now they want to see if they can triple stack or quadruple stack their latest attempts.
Let’s see. They played Benghazi as something about the President being weak on foreign policy and somehow allowing a terrorist attack to result in Four. Dead. Americans. And they tried to make a story out of what talking points were developed for news program appearances right afterward. Except that even their audience understood that this whole matter was completely discussed last fall – most crucially when Mitt Romney humiliated himself by trying to pull a “gotcha!” at the end of the second debate. And we all know that there were far more Americans who died in assaults like these on consulates and embassies during the George W. Bush Administration. And we know that the Benghazi assault happened in the midst of a week of complete chaos in the region as a result of the video that the right wing keeps trying to forget about. So in the end, what does Fox News have in the Benghazi story? The same emails they had six months ago, the same disproven allegations, and the same disgruntled guys who were complaining about what was happening when it was relevant. So no story here. Yet Fox continues to push it, hoping they can keep fanning it, like Joe Sestak, until a better story comes along. The most desperate form of this idea came with Chris Wallace embarassing himself last weekend by demanding to know which room the President happened to be in at each point during the night of September 11th last year, something that Bill O’Reilly somehow thinks is an important issue, for reasons only he can fathom. As Obama’s advisor pointed out, that’s irrelevant. And I think even Fox News knows that.
They’ve played the IRS story as some kind of conspiracy theory of President Obama somehow telling his guys not to allow Tea Party groups to interfere with his re-election. Riiiggght. Except that the testimony and records we’ve seen don’t show that. They show that the IRS officials were dealing with an avalanche of political groups trying to take advantage of the Citizens United ruling, and given that this was a time when the right wingers were desperate to somehow unseat Obama, there was a flood of Tea Party applications for tax exempt status. What the right wing is forgetting here is that these groups still put up plenty of commercials and gatherings to promote their cause, and many of them did in fact achieve tax-exempt status. They just didn’t like what looks like extra scrutiny, and I’d agree that this wasn’t fair. But it didn’t by any means prevent them from speaking at all, nor could it have done so. This was a money matter, and more precisely, a clerical matter. This was a discussion of sorting and filing among bureaucrats.
So the whole question about when the President found out about all the bumbling and internal reviews in the IRS is an odd one. The President doesn’t interfere with the IRS and has stated as such. His people may have started to hear about the matter, but they weren’t going to get him involved in that kind of thing as it would be like getting Donald Trump involved in the job application forms at his casino. Obviously, when President Obama found out, he was angry about it. And we’re now seeing the usual bureaucratic dance of forced resignations, stalls, suspensions, etc. That will play out over another few weeks, and that’ll be it. But the idea that somehow this turned the election is silly on its face. Ohio saw a record amount of advertising and politicking going on within its borders over the last election cycle. The Romney campaign spent a massive amount there, as did all the GOP groups. Ohio residents were DELUGED with materials. And the Tea Party groups in question still participated in the deluge. The discussion here isn’t whether they could speak – it’s about when they were able to tell their supporters they could deduct their donations.
By the way, it’s interesting to hear the right wing complain that left wingers would be up in arms if something like this happened under a GOP presidency. They’re absolutely right – because there WAS suppression of left wing groups under the George W. Bush administration. I find it strange that the right wing forgets that protesters during Bush’s terms were regularly called traitors and worse, that the left wing was accused of “not supporting our troops”, that Bush’s press secretary told Americans they “should watch what they do, watch what they say” and that even Bush himself announced “You’re either with us, or you’re with the terrorists.” The right wing wants people to forget about the Joe Wilson matter, where a diplomat and his wife were targeted by the Bush people for Wilson’s public statements about Bush lies that helped lead the country to war with Iraq. At the time that all this was happening, I don’t recall Fox News or any AM radio pundits sticking up for the rights of the protesters by any means. And those protesters didn’t have the money behind them that the Tea Party groups do. I agree that it’s unfair for the Tea Party groups to have been asked to produce more paperwork, and I think it’s appropriate that the matter was corrected. But that doesn’t mean they didn’t get to speak, and by no means did this paperwork somehow turn an election.
The DOJ issue with the reporters is actually unravelling for Fox News, so they’re falling back on the Rosen story to see if they can get traction there. Because the AP phone records matter was legal under the Patriot Act, and apparently under the Espionage Act, as even Fox News has been forced to admit. Even Jay Sekulow, in the midst of a ridiculous segment with Juan Williams last night, was compelled to admit that the AP had violated national security laws in their conduct, thus generating a problem for themselves. As pointed out here, the facts show that Rosen also bumbled his way into this situation – and he’s lucky that the DOJ doesn’t want to push the matter. Of course, this won’t stop Fox News from pushing the matter in the other direction. But I don’t know if they want to push too hard here – if all the materials of what Rosen was doing were to come out publicly, I don’t think it will paint him or Fox News in a very good light.
It’s ironic to me that Fox News is so desperately trying to pump these matters up. It’s also ironic that while they are trying to smear President Obama, they are simultaneously trying to elevate not only George W. Bush but also Richard Nixon. One of the “news” hours yesterday included a sentimental piece about veterans and soldiers visiting the Nixon White House for Memorial Day, talking about how the soldiers will never forget visiting Richard Nixon in his study and what a great time it all was. I can understand celebrating a visit to the White House for Memorial Day – but the NIXON White House? (And I’ll try to stay out of the total rewrite of history they were doing about how Nixon “kept his promise and got us out of the Vietnam War”…)
Kevin Koster commented on Malkin Blames British Liberals For London Terrorist Attack
2013-05-23 04:19:25 -0400
· Flag
One seriously has to wonder what it is that is making Malkin so angry and so bitter toward anyone else on the air. It’s truly dispiriting to see someone so miserable spend so much energy randomly attacking anyone she winds up sharing airtime with on television. Even Hannity for all of his issues, is not consistently sitting on the sheer levels of rage she seems to be trying to contain. On the other hand, as pointed out, Hannity never calls her on the hatefulness.
Kevin Koster commented on Fox Poll Bias Assumes People Are Concerned About Its Fake Scandals
2013-05-22 12:30:13 -0400
· Flag
To be fair, there is a “None” option. But there’s no doubt that this is a typical Fox News push poll, not unlike the ones regularly conducted on O’Reilly and Greta’s shows. The assumption is that the poll taker is an avid Fox News fan who agrees with the premise of the initial question – that somehow the Obama Administration is a hotbed of criminal activity and the only question is exactly WHICH activity they should be angriest about.
I’ll have to look back and check to see how many polls Fox News conducted about the very real criminality that ran rampant in the George W. Bush Administration, and then how those polls were worded. Something tells me that a different narrative was being presented at that time…
I’ll have to look back and check to see how many polls Fox News conducted about the very real criminality that ran rampant in the George W. Bush Administration, and then how those polls were worded. Something tells me that a different narrative was being presented at that time…