Kevin Koster commented on Steve Doocy Schooled By Guest On Bogus "War On Stay At Home Moms"
2012-04-13 17:47:43 -0400
· Flag
Doocy raising the canard about the Romneys’ old apartment is yet another red herring.
According to the interviews they gave in 1994 in Boston, Mitt and Ann did indeed live in a basement apartment for $62 per month while they were studying together at BYU. It wasn’t fancy, and they had to make do with less. But here’s the key: Neither of them was holding a job. The $62 and all their expenses were covered by Mitt selling stock he had been given by his father. The stock was worth the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of dollars today.
So yes, they did try to live the life of someone who doesn’t have that level of income, particularly since they wanted to show their parents that they weren’t just waiting for their inheritances. But they never really had to make the seriously tough choices most of us make on a daily basis. They could have easily lived in a more expensive place, as they chose to do when they moved into a house in Boston with a loan from Mitt’s father. They also would have had the assistance of their parents had they really needed it – they simply chose to show that they didn’t. Which is admirable, but does not make the case that they truly understand what the less well-off think about the economy.
According to the interviews they gave in 1994 in Boston, Mitt and Ann did indeed live in a basement apartment for $62 per month while they were studying together at BYU. It wasn’t fancy, and they had to make do with less. But here’s the key: Neither of them was holding a job. The $62 and all their expenses were covered by Mitt selling stock he had been given by his father. The stock was worth the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of dollars today.
So yes, they did try to live the life of someone who doesn’t have that level of income, particularly since they wanted to show their parents that they weren’t just waiting for their inheritances. But they never really had to make the seriously tough choices most of us make on a daily basis. They could have easily lived in a more expensive place, as they chose to do when they moved into a house in Boston with a loan from Mitt’s father. They also would have had the assistance of their parents had they really needed it – they simply chose to show that they didn’t. Which is admirable, but does not make the case that they truly understand what the less well-off think about the economy.
Kevin Koster commented on Greta Van Susteren Defends Hilary Rosen
2012-04-13 13:55:41 -0400
· Flag
I agree with the NBA foul play call. This is absolutely a flop play by the right.
Hilary Rosen was not attacking mothers. She was making the accurate point that Mitt Romney’s gender appeal problem is not helped by him saying that his wife is the source of his information about women’s economic issues today. She was pointing out that Ann Romney wouldn’t know much about this area, since she’s never dealt with the economic challenges most women must handle on a daily basis.
Rosen was combining the two areas where Romney is in serious trouble: 1. GOP actions over the past couple of years have driven women away, particularly in recent times with the Limbaugh attack on Sandra Fluke and the reprehensible state legislation around the country designed to attack womens’ rights. The GOP has an even bigger skeleton that the Dems are exploiting – their refusal to support the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Romney’s own inability to appeal to women is exacerbated by these facts, and his trotting out of his wife like this is a sign to Rosen and most women that he’s way too old fashioned in his thinking. 2. Romney and his wife are quite out of touch with how lower income people than themselves deal with things. Romney has already demonstrated this numerous times, with the 10K bet, with the comment about firing people, and with his general sense of entitlement. Romney’s new refusal to publish his tax info is another sign of this – it looks like he’ll have another embarassingly low number for what he actually paid. (Obama by contrast paid 20+ percent, and also donated 22 percent to charity. Add that up and Obama is paying a respectable amount – and he’s willing to pay more.) Romney citing his wife as a source of info on women’s economic issues makes no sense, since she’s never had to do without the amenities the Romneys can easily afford.
Ann Romney would be a fine source of information if you wanted to know about the issues of raising multiple children in a household with a frequently absent husband and father. She would be a fine source of information if you wanted to know about what women go through when fighting diseases like cancer and MS. She would be a fine source of information about how the wealthy try to perform public service. But she is a poor choice if you’re looking to find out what working women in this country are thinking.
Hilary Rosen was not attacking mothers. She was making the accurate point that Mitt Romney’s gender appeal problem is not helped by him saying that his wife is the source of his information about women’s economic issues today. She was pointing out that Ann Romney wouldn’t know much about this area, since she’s never dealt with the economic challenges most women must handle on a daily basis.
Rosen was combining the two areas where Romney is in serious trouble: 1. GOP actions over the past couple of years have driven women away, particularly in recent times with the Limbaugh attack on Sandra Fluke and the reprehensible state legislation around the country designed to attack womens’ rights. The GOP has an even bigger skeleton that the Dems are exploiting – their refusal to support the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Romney’s own inability to appeal to women is exacerbated by these facts, and his trotting out of his wife like this is a sign to Rosen and most women that he’s way too old fashioned in his thinking. 2. Romney and his wife are quite out of touch with how lower income people than themselves deal with things. Romney has already demonstrated this numerous times, with the 10K bet, with the comment about firing people, and with his general sense of entitlement. Romney’s new refusal to publish his tax info is another sign of this – it looks like he’ll have another embarassingly low number for what he actually paid. (Obama by contrast paid 20+ percent, and also donated 22 percent to charity. Add that up and Obama is paying a respectable amount – and he’s willing to pay more.) Romney citing his wife as a source of info on women’s economic issues makes no sense, since she’s never had to do without the amenities the Romneys can easily afford.
Ann Romney would be a fine source of information if you wanted to know about the issues of raising multiple children in a household with a frequently absent husband and father. She would be a fine source of information if you wanted to know about what women go through when fighting diseases like cancer and MS. She would be a fine source of information about how the wealthy try to perform public service. But she is a poor choice if you’re looking to find out what working women in this country are thinking.
Kevin Koster commented on Martha MacCallum Interviews Ann Romney & Advances Hilary Rosen Connection To DNC
2012-04-12 23:08:43 -0400
· Flag
I’m sorry but this entire hooplah has been extremely offensive to me. Hilary Rosen’s comments, that Ann Romney has never worked a day in her life, were actually quite accurate. Particularly when understood in the context with which they were stated – that Mitt Romney has a serious problem understanding the economic issues working women face and just asking his wife about them does not alleviate the problem. Mitt Romney’s statement that his wife is his source of information on women’s economic woes is itself quite offensive if you think about it for more than a moment.
Rosen wasn’t denigrating stay at home mothers, or even stay at home mothers who have a lot of money and household help, as the Romneys did and do. Rosen was saying that Ann Romney has no frame of reference to talk about what it’s like to work a full time job and also have to take care of your children, who your job is feeding. Romney has never had to work a full time job while supporting multiple children. She has never had to figure out how to stretch a paycheck to accomodate the needs of several people to eat and have a roof over their heads.
My mother worked full time to take care of my brother and myself, and would still come home to cook a meal almost every night of the week. She did not have any nannies, maids or any other help. (If anything, my brother and I were the ones cleaning the home and taking care of everything we could while my mother paid the bills.) This is a life experience Ann Romney never had – it’s something that on its face would be foreign to the Romneys.
Telling Hilary Rosen to apologize for a slight she did not make is one of the most craven and shameful acts I have seen liberal pundits commit.
Rosen wasn’t denigrating stay at home mothers, or even stay at home mothers who have a lot of money and household help, as the Romneys did and do. Rosen was saying that Ann Romney has no frame of reference to talk about what it’s like to work a full time job and also have to take care of your children, who your job is feeding. Romney has never had to work a full time job while supporting multiple children. She has never had to figure out how to stretch a paycheck to accomodate the needs of several people to eat and have a roof over their heads.
My mother worked full time to take care of my brother and myself, and would still come home to cook a meal almost every night of the week. She did not have any nannies, maids or any other help. (If anything, my brother and I were the ones cleaning the home and taking care of everything we could while my mother paid the bills.) This is a life experience Ann Romney never had – it’s something that on its face would be foreign to the Romneys.
Telling Hilary Rosen to apologize for a slight she did not make is one of the most craven and shameful acts I have seen liberal pundits commit.
Kevin Koster commented on Newt Gingrich Sounds Like He's Conceding To Romney
2012-04-08 15:50:02 -0400
· Flag
Gingrich will be back in his berth at Fox News after the convention, assuming that he doesn’t drop out of the race earlier. I expect that Santorum will similarly get a position at Fox as a commentator.
After this year, they’ll be looking to freshen up their commentating – I have a feeling they will drop Sarah Palin by the end of the year in favor of Santorum and other faces.
This has been a hard year for them, and we’re only in early April now. It’s still possible that Romney could win the election – if the economy completely tanks, or if there’s some kind of major incident where they can paint Obama in a bad light. But however the Supreme Court decides on Health Care, it doesn’t seem to be something that will really affect the election.
What is sad for the GOP is that they are once again getting a candidate that most of them don’t even want. Had any of the harder right candidates acted less selfishly, they might have been able to pull together a coalition that would have stopped Romney by now. Instead, they all tried to knock each other out. There’s a great line from the 1983 comedy SCARFACE: “Never underestimate the OTHER GUY’S GREED!”
After this year, they’ll be looking to freshen up their commentating – I have a feeling they will drop Sarah Palin by the end of the year in favor of Santorum and other faces.
This has been a hard year for them, and we’re only in early April now. It’s still possible that Romney could win the election – if the economy completely tanks, or if there’s some kind of major incident where they can paint Obama in a bad light. But however the Supreme Court decides on Health Care, it doesn’t seem to be something that will really affect the election.
What is sad for the GOP is that they are once again getting a candidate that most of them don’t even want. Had any of the harder right candidates acted less selfishly, they might have been able to pull together a coalition that would have stopped Romney by now. Instead, they all tried to knock each other out. There’s a great line from the 1983 comedy SCARFACE: “Never underestimate the OTHER GUY’S GREED!”
Kevin Koster commented on Birther Trump Lectures Obama About Respect For Supreme Court
2012-04-05 22:55:43 -0400
· Flag
Michael, the Joe Arpaio scenario is particularly strange, given that he has no business mucking about in this, other than to further his notoriety. The facts are that the birth certificate put forward by Obama, both the long and the short forms, have been substantiated.
There were some loons on the internet who attempted to “prove” that the document was generated on a computer, but this was totally debunked by people who understand what happens when you create a PDF document via scanning software. (Meaning that the computer program broke down the image information into several layers when scanning the hard copy)
As for this entire silliness about Obama’s comments, all he did was opine that the Supreme Court would do well to observe its own history and not just make a political ruling to help the right wing. His point was clear to anyone paying attention and not trying to make hay out of it – he was cautioning them against another Bush v Gore or Plessy v Ferguson ruling. Such a ruling would be a black eye on the honor and integrity of the court.
One can argue that Obama was a bit presumptuous to make the statement, or that he should have waited until AFTER the Court had ruled before wading into it. But there’s nothing sinister about his statement.
On the other hand, the Republican judge who threw the tantrum and demanded the Justice Department give him a 3 page memo about Obama’s statement was clearly doing so for the publicity. Obama never said that the court does not have the right to review laws or to override Congress. He talked instead about watching out for legislating from the bench and judicial activism – two frequent talking points for the right wing that they would be violating by overturning the Affordable Health Care Act. (Of course the same right wing pundits that constantly talk about judicial activism on the left are trying to say that this wouldn’t be so – since it would benefit their cause.)
There were some loons on the internet who attempted to “prove” that the document was generated on a computer, but this was totally debunked by people who understand what happens when you create a PDF document via scanning software. (Meaning that the computer program broke down the image information into several layers when scanning the hard copy)
As for this entire silliness about Obama’s comments, all he did was opine that the Supreme Court would do well to observe its own history and not just make a political ruling to help the right wing. His point was clear to anyone paying attention and not trying to make hay out of it – he was cautioning them against another Bush v Gore or Plessy v Ferguson ruling. Such a ruling would be a black eye on the honor and integrity of the court.
One can argue that Obama was a bit presumptuous to make the statement, or that he should have waited until AFTER the Court had ruled before wading into it. But there’s nothing sinister about his statement.
On the other hand, the Republican judge who threw the tantrum and demanded the Justice Department give him a 3 page memo about Obama’s statement was clearly doing so for the publicity. Obama never said that the court does not have the right to review laws or to override Congress. He talked instead about watching out for legislating from the bench and judicial activism – two frequent talking points for the right wing that they would be violating by overturning the Affordable Health Care Act. (Of course the same right wing pundits that constantly talk about judicial activism on the left are trying to say that this wouldn’t be so – since it would benefit their cause.)
Kevin Koster commented on O’Reilly Still Pushing The Myth Of The Government’s $16 Muffin
2012-04-05 17:35:47 -0400
· Flag
I’ve been amused by the $16 muffin canard for a while. I noted that O’Reilly has had to adjust his position to admit that it wasn’t just the muffin, although he’s done so far more quietly than when he trumpeted the other idea.
As for the $820,000 for the Vegas conference, I have to admit he has a point. Which is why some people have been resigning about it – it really looks bad to have an agency spending that kind of money just to “scout” the conference. The $4 shrimp is a silly figure, but the other numbers do speak to government waste.
The part that I believe Karl Rove was off on was where he opined that the hotel driving up the costs for the food to pay for the preferential rates on the hotel rooms and conference rooms was somehow illegal. It isn’t, if the payer is willing to pony up the money. The payer is just as able to say “No, this is too much money.”
And the cost for that $16 continental breakfast, as well as for the $4 shrimp hides a few things. The biggest one is that there are a bunch of servers working the room and maintaining the dishes. And there is a kitchen full of people working all day preparing food for all the people at the conference. The cost of the food pays for the chefs and the servers and the other hotel staff who are essentially being turned over to the conference, which is getting free conference rooms and deeply discounted hotel rooms. Winds up being a good deal for the government, which pays way under the market value for the overall package, and a good deal for the hotel, which still brings in a good number for itself. And it fits within the budget the government agency has. But that’s parsing numbers O’Reilly either doesn’t know or doesn’t understand.
As for the $820,000 for the Vegas conference, I have to admit he has a point. Which is why some people have been resigning about it – it really looks bad to have an agency spending that kind of money just to “scout” the conference. The $4 shrimp is a silly figure, but the other numbers do speak to government waste.
The part that I believe Karl Rove was off on was where he opined that the hotel driving up the costs for the food to pay for the preferential rates on the hotel rooms and conference rooms was somehow illegal. It isn’t, if the payer is willing to pony up the money. The payer is just as able to say “No, this is too much money.”
And the cost for that $16 continental breakfast, as well as for the $4 shrimp hides a few things. The biggest one is that there are a bunch of servers working the room and maintaining the dishes. And there is a kitchen full of people working all day preparing food for all the people at the conference. The cost of the food pays for the chefs and the servers and the other hotel staff who are essentially being turned over to the conference, which is getting free conference rooms and deeply discounted hotel rooms. Winds up being a good deal for the government, which pays way under the market value for the overall package, and a good deal for the hotel, which still brings in a good number for itself. And it fits within the budget the government agency has. But that’s parsing numbers O’Reilly either doesn’t know or doesn’t understand.
Kevin Koster commented on Steve Doocy Pushes Right Wing Study: College Students Indoctrinated By Liberal Professors
2012-04-05 17:25:42 -0400
· Flag
This is beyond silly. I went to UC Berkeley – there were multiple classes in, for example, Shakespearean studies. From a literary, historical and dramaturgical persepective.
And apparently as news to Rick Santorum, the University of California and Cal State campuses have many, many classes offered on US History, including a wide variety of perspectives. I believe there may be a few specialty campuses – like a Med School, that don’t feature those classes, but these are campuses you’d attend for grad level medical work – where you wouldn’t be taking classes in anything but that area.
This canard gets brought up time and time again, and each time we hear it, it’s like playing Whack-A-Mole. Again.
And apparently as news to Rick Santorum, the University of California and Cal State campuses have many, many classes offered on US History, including a wide variety of perspectives. I believe there may be a few specialty campuses – like a Med School, that don’t feature those classes, but these are campuses you’d attend for grad level medical work – where you wouldn’t be taking classes in anything but that area.
This canard gets brought up time and time again, and each time we hear it, it’s like playing Whack-A-Mole. Again.
Kevin Koster commented on Is Anyone On Fox News In A Position To Complain About Irresponsible Media Behavior In The Trayvon Martin Case?
2012-04-04 03:08:03 -0400
· Flag
I find it interesting that this is the same network that has repeatedly rushed to judgment on any issue where it can take a partisan stand against either Democrats or left-leaners, or both.
Even sillier is the attack on NBC for the editing of the 911 recording of George Zimmerman. I agree that an NBC employee editing this material was unprofessional and inflammatory, and should be properly dealt with. However, if Fox wants to go down this road, I’m delighted. It means that they are ready to openly condemn the works of Andrew Breitbart and James O’Keefe, whose deceptively edited material have caused a tremendous amount of confusion and misery.
Even sillier is the attack on NBC for the editing of the 911 recording of George Zimmerman. I agree that an NBC employee editing this material was unprofessional and inflammatory, and should be properly dealt with. However, if Fox wants to go down this road, I’m delighted. It means that they are ready to openly condemn the works of Andrew Breitbart and James O’Keefe, whose deceptively edited material have caused a tremendous amount of confusion and misery.
Kevin Koster commented on Marco Rubio Endorses Mitt Romney On Hannity
2012-03-29 01:40:35 -0400
· Flag
I’ve been more intrigued by Hannity’s desperation to see the Supreme Court rule the way he wants on the Affordable Health Care Act. It’s interesting that he also thinks he knows in advance what the High Court will rule, even when nobody else does.
Kevin Koster commented on O’Reilly Uses Trayvon Martin Case To Play The Race Card Against Blacks And Obama
2012-03-27 10:24:48 -0400
· Flag
There was also a strange moment in the Juan Williams/Mary Katherine Ham discussion, where O’Reilly opined that Zimmerman was the “Neighborhood Watch Patrol guy” so that to O’Reilly’s view, he was “just doing his job” when he called 911 about Martin. Nobody called him on this. The reality is that Zimmerman appointed himself to do that – and that’s crucial to understanding the situation.
It seems clear that Zimmerman’s chasing of Martin led to a fight between the two guys – one that Zimmerman was losing when he pulled his gun and killed Martin. The only confusion seems to be who initiated the fight – from the cellphone call of Martin to his girlfriend, it sounds like Zimmerman initiated it. But there’s no way to know for sure. Zimmerman’s voice is highly pitched enough that it could well have been him yelling for help. We’ll have to see if further investigation illuminates anything.
It seems clear that Zimmerman’s chasing of Martin led to a fight between the two guys – one that Zimmerman was losing when he pulled his gun and killed Martin. The only confusion seems to be who initiated the fight – from the cellphone call of Martin to his girlfriend, it sounds like Zimmerman initiated it. But there’s no way to know for sure. Zimmerman’s voice is highly pitched enough that it could well have been him yelling for help. We’ll have to see if further investigation illuminates anything.
Kevin Koster commented on Not A Single Fox News Pundit Can Explain The “Horror” Of Obama’s Radical Associations
2012-03-24 05:28:15 -0400
· Flag
Bill, are you still trying to present your opinion about Professor Ogletree’s sarcastic commentary from a while back? I thought you had issued your final comment on this subject and moved on. Does this mean that you’re interested in getting involved in a serious discussion of real issues, and not just a reiteration of Sean Hannity’s desperate attacks on President Obama?
Kevin Koster commented on O’Reilly Edits Out Racial Aspects Of Trayvon Martin Case
2012-03-21 12:27:59 -0400
· Flag
There’s one part of this that is confusing me. What’s the story about the fight between Zimmerman and Martin? Did Zimmerman attack Martin, or did Martin, thinking he was being stalked, jump on Zimmerman?
From what I read, it sounds like Zimmerman initiated the problem by stalking and chasing Martin even after being told to back off. It sounds like a fight then happened between the guys and that Zimmerman then shot Martin in the chest during the fight. Is that essentially what happened here?
From what I read, it sounds like Zimmerman initiated the problem by stalking and chasing Martin even after being told to back off. It sounds like a fight then happened between the guys and that Zimmerman then shot Martin in the chest during the fight. Is that essentially what happened here?
Kevin Koster commented on O’Reilly Denies Reality: Nobody Is Messing Around With Women’s Reproductive Rights
2012-03-20 08:55:57 -0400
· Flag
The consistent pattern with both O’Reilly and Hannity is that they are vulnerable when the guests actually have a strong set of facts and figures in front of them. It is a usual O’Reilly “gotcha” to a liberal guest to immediately challenge them with a “Yeah? Name ONE example of that!” It is a usual Hannity “gotcha” to immediately challenge any materials if he thinks he can discredit the source of a poll or study.
Unfortunately, the liberal guests, like Alan Colmes when he was Hannity’s regular co-host, usually back down and don’t have all the facts for the debate at hand. It can be very depressing to watch one of them wither in front of obvious mistruths being spoken. But at the same time, these guests are clearly aware that they are only being brought on to be knocked down – since the show is really about O’Reilly or Hannity getting their moment to put them down rather than being about a real examination of the issues.
Unfortunately, the liberal guests, like Alan Colmes when he was Hannity’s regular co-host, usually back down and don’t have all the facts for the debate at hand. It can be very depressing to watch one of them wither in front of obvious mistruths being spoken. But at the same time, these guests are clearly aware that they are only being brought on to be knocked down – since the show is really about O’Reilly or Hannity getting their moment to put them down rather than being about a real examination of the issues.
Kevin Koster commented on Bill O’Reilly Laughably Insists “We Never Threatened Anyone” With A Boycott
2012-03-16 17:55:52 -0400
· Flag
O’Reilly admitted in his rant that he did in fact call for a boycott of France at that time. (Of course, he painted the story as though France was siding with Hussein, rather than just taking the reasonable position that WMDs had not been proven to even be in Iraq.)
Worse in the show was O’Reilly’s inability to recognize that Brent Bozell has actually been a very negative presence in the media, and that he not only runs the MRC, he also is responsible for the behavior of the PTC, which was humiliated over 10 years ago, after they slandered the World Wrestling Federation, saying that WWF encouraged violence in children.
Worse in the show was O’Reilly’s inability to recognize that Brent Bozell has actually been a very negative presence in the media, and that he not only runs the MRC, he also is responsible for the behavior of the PTC, which was humiliated over 10 years ago, after they slandered the World Wrestling Federation, saying that WWF encouraged violence in children.
Kevin Koster commented on Hannity “Unveils” Another Breitbart Revelation: A Play Obama Attended In 1998!
2012-03-16 09:05:59 -0400
· Flag
This is definitely a sign of desperation for Sean Hannity. He’s dredging up irrelevant material and making bizarre correlations on the level of a conspiracy theorist.
It’s not the first time. Remember the Joe Sestak “scandal” in 2010? The one that Hannity trumpeted every night for what felt like forever, insisting that it would cause Obama to be impeached? The one that turned out to be nothing – and in fact the result of former President Bill Clinton making a phone call?
The current list of bizarre connections Hannity is making are:
1. Obama “started his career in Bill Ayers’ living room” FALSE. Obama visited Ayers’ living room on a day when he visited many people’s homes in Chicago as part of his campaign for local political office.
2. Obama is “close friends” or “worked closely” with Ayers and Dohrn, including sitting on a Board with Ayers, “an unrepentant terrorist”. FALSE/MISLEADING Obama barely knows Ayers, who made his living for many years as a professor in Illinois. As a local community member and teacher, Ayers served on the Board of a local foundation at the same time as Obama – a Board that had many people on it and was not an organization where anyone was working “closely” with anyone else. Ayers is certainly an unrepentant protestor, who wishes he could have done more to end the Vietnam War, but is not an “unrepentant terrorist”. He has made clear that people saying he wished he’d set more bombs with the Weathermen are mischaracterizing his statements. It should be noted that Obama made clear that he absolutely denounces the bombings done by the Weather Underground.
3. Obama went to Jeremiah Wright’s church for 20 years. SO WHAT? This claim was vetted during 2008 and hasn’t become any more relevant since then.
4. Obama supported Derrick Bell in a campus speech at Harvard in 1990 and hugged him in public. AGAIN, SO WHAT? Obama supported a popular professor at Harvard, the first black man to receive tenure there. (And who gave up that tenure in protest over black women being denied that tenure.)
5. Obama studied the work of Saul Alinsky and even went to a play about him, and included Alinsky’s writings in the syllabus of a course he taught. ONCE AGAIN, SO WHAT? Many on the right study the work of Saul Alinsky in terms of understanding the principles of organizing people for political purposes. Obama’s presence at a play and panel discussion about Alinsky only speaks to his position as a teacher and his knowledge about this particular person. The Alinsky text on the syllabus also included other materials by right wing authors, but the pundits aren’t complaining about those.
All of this simply goes to support the notion that Sean Hannity is dredging the bottom to find something, ANYTHING that could be the “gotcha” moment that somehow ends Obama’s chances for re-election. This is in spite of the fact that Obama is ahead in the polls, and that the GOP candidates are clearly in terrible shape.
And all of this speaks more to Hannity’s own desperation and dislike of Obama than it does to any substantive issue.
It’s not the first time. Remember the Joe Sestak “scandal” in 2010? The one that Hannity trumpeted every night for what felt like forever, insisting that it would cause Obama to be impeached? The one that turned out to be nothing – and in fact the result of former President Bill Clinton making a phone call?
The current list of bizarre connections Hannity is making are:
1. Obama “started his career in Bill Ayers’ living room” FALSE. Obama visited Ayers’ living room on a day when he visited many people’s homes in Chicago as part of his campaign for local political office.
2. Obama is “close friends” or “worked closely” with Ayers and Dohrn, including sitting on a Board with Ayers, “an unrepentant terrorist”. FALSE/MISLEADING Obama barely knows Ayers, who made his living for many years as a professor in Illinois. As a local community member and teacher, Ayers served on the Board of a local foundation at the same time as Obama – a Board that had many people on it and was not an organization where anyone was working “closely” with anyone else. Ayers is certainly an unrepentant protestor, who wishes he could have done more to end the Vietnam War, but is not an “unrepentant terrorist”. He has made clear that people saying he wished he’d set more bombs with the Weathermen are mischaracterizing his statements. It should be noted that Obama made clear that he absolutely denounces the bombings done by the Weather Underground.
3. Obama went to Jeremiah Wright’s church for 20 years. SO WHAT? This claim was vetted during 2008 and hasn’t become any more relevant since then.
4. Obama supported Derrick Bell in a campus speech at Harvard in 1990 and hugged him in public. AGAIN, SO WHAT? Obama supported a popular professor at Harvard, the first black man to receive tenure there. (And who gave up that tenure in protest over black women being denied that tenure.)
5. Obama studied the work of Saul Alinsky and even went to a play about him, and included Alinsky’s writings in the syllabus of a course he taught. ONCE AGAIN, SO WHAT? Many on the right study the work of Saul Alinsky in terms of understanding the principles of organizing people for political purposes. Obama’s presence at a play and panel discussion about Alinsky only speaks to his position as a teacher and his knowledge about this particular person. The Alinsky text on the syllabus also included other materials by right wing authors, but the pundits aren’t complaining about those.
All of this simply goes to support the notion that Sean Hannity is dredging the bottom to find something, ANYTHING that could be the “gotcha” moment that somehow ends Obama’s chances for re-election. This is in spite of the fact that Obama is ahead in the polls, and that the GOP candidates are clearly in terrible shape.
And all of this speaks more to Hannity’s own desperation and dislike of Obama than it does to any substantive issue.
Kevin Koster commented on Hannity Doubles Down On Using 1990 Breitbart Video To Make Racial Attacks On Obama
2012-03-16 01:31:32 -0400
· Flag
Bill, your citation makes no sense. Are you equating your posts with Jon Stewart’s editorial? He was clearly angry about the way he was publicly attacked – and particularly how people tried to either threaten his life or terrorize him into shutting up. It’s totally understandable why anyone would be angry about having their life threatened.
In your case, however, you simply expressed anger over your unhappiness both with the current President and with posters here who do not accept your assumptions as truths. Nobody said you couldn’t state your opinions, and nobody threatened your life.
In your case, however, you simply expressed anger over your unhappiness both with the current President and with posters here who do not accept your assumptions as truths. Nobody said you couldn’t state your opinions, and nobody threatened your life.
Kevin Koster commented on On Fox & Friends: Jason Mattera Attacks "Hollywood Hypocrites"
2012-03-15 09:22:32 -0400
· Flag
Jason Mattera is one of those commentators that just makes you shake your head. His book is loaded with assumptions about Hollywood that are not borne out by the facts. His latest embarassment is his attempt to “punk” Chris Rock, which has had an unfortunate result for Mattera and his camera. One has to wonder why Sean Hannity gives any credence to this man.
Kevin Koster commented on O’Reilly Channels Beck With Latest Sandra Fluke Conspiracy Theory
2012-03-12 08:38:13 -0400
· Flag
Lynn, it’s interesting that the Fox News response to Limbaugh’s indefensible rants at Sandra Fluke is to raise the false comparison to Bill Maher. As though progressives had never condemned Maher’s remarks.
The fact here is that Limbaugh acted terribly toward this person and only made the smallest move toward an apology after days of consistently bad behavior when his advertisers began to flee. Trying to spin this in another direction feels like an act of right wing desperation.
The fact here is that Limbaugh acted terribly toward this person and only made the smallest move toward an apology after days of consistently bad behavior when his advertisers began to flee. Trying to spin this in another direction feels like an act of right wing desperation.
Kevin Koster commented on Hannity Agog Over Breitbart’s Recycled “Obama Race Video” - Exposing Whom Obama Hugged In 1990
2012-03-11 06:30:00 -0400
· Flag
Laura, you have not answered any of the reasonable statements and facts I have presented to you. Instead, you have referred to some kind of “lies” that you do not specify, and which you say you don’t believe.
Your comment about gun sales is a bit disturbing, however. You seem to be saying that you intend to buy a gun after Obama is reelected. For what purpose are you doing this? Why do you need to own a gun? What do you plan to do with it?
And if you think Obama “has ruined this country”, what exactly do you mean? Your assertions have already been disproven and debunked, so what evidence do you have to support your thinking?
Your comment about gun sales is a bit disturbing, however. You seem to be saying that you intend to buy a gun after Obama is reelected. For what purpose are you doing this? Why do you need to own a gun? What do you plan to do with it?
And if you think Obama “has ruined this country”, what exactly do you mean? Your assertions have already been disproven and debunked, so what evidence do you have to support your thinking?
Kevin Koster commented on Geraldo Rivera Smacks Down The Breitbart/Hannity “Obama Race Tape”
2012-03-10 15:20:27 -0500
· Flag
It’s not getting traction because there’s no story. Barack Obama participated in a campus protest to support a popular professor who was taking a stand. Really nothing unusual about it. And Charles Ogletree’s remarks about it were obviously a joke to his students.
It’s just a sign of how desperate the right wing is getting, now that they can see that the primary races are not having the results they want.
It’s just a sign of how desperate the right wing is getting, now that they can see that the primary races are not having the results they want.