Right-wing media claim Obama is criticizing Fox for "tough questions" and "reporting the truth"
Several right-wing media figures have claimed that the Obama administration is criticizing Fox News because the network asks "tough questions" and is "reporting the truth." This assertion is undermined by Fox News' extensive history of advancing falsehoods, repeatedly passing off GOP materials as news, doctoring quotes, and frequently engaging in outrageous attacks on President Obama, such as Glenn Beck's claim that he is a "racist" with a "deep-seated hatred for white people, or the white culture -- I don't know what it is."
Conservative media figures claim the Obama administration is targeting them for "reporting the truth"
Limbaugh claimed "Obama's out there attacking" Fox because it is "reporting the truth." On the October 22 broadcast of his radio program, Rush Limbaugh claimed that Kenneth Feinberg, the Treasury Department official in charge of setting compensation for bailed-out companies, had "independent authority." Tying the story to other supposed Obama administration scandals, Limbaugh grouped himself with Fox News: "So it's no wonder Obama's out there attacking me and Fox News. Who else will report this? That's what's really going on here. The people who are reporting the truth in this country are the targets of this administration: Fox News, talk radio, me in particular. That's what's going on." [Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show, 10/22/09]
Beck to media: "When they're done with Fox and talk radio, do you really think they're going to leave you alone if you want to ask a tough question?" On his October 13 radio show, Beck said: "When they're done with Fox, and you decide to speak out on something. The old, 'First they came for the Jews, and I wasn't Jewish.' When you have a question, and you believe that something should be asked, they're a -- totally fine with you right now; they have no problem with you. When they're done with Fox and talk radio, do you really think they're going to leave you alone if you want to ask a tough question? Do you really think that a man who has never had to stand against tough questions and has as much power as he does -- do you really believe after he takes out the number one news network, do you really think that this man is then not going to turn on you? That you and your little organization is going to cause him any hesitation at all not to take you out?" [Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program, 10/13/09]
Rove: "If you dare oppose them, they're going to come hard at you. ... Fox is asking tough questions." On the October 18 edition of Fox News Sunday, Fox News contributor Karl Rove said: "[T]his is an administration that's getting very arrogant and slippery in its dealings with people. And if you dare to oppose them, they're going to come hard at you, and they're going to cut your legs off. ... Fox is asking tough questions. Fox has got on the opinion side of it some very tough critics of the administration. They're conflating the news side and the opinion side in order to -- in order to attack a media outlet. Again, it's undignified for the president of the United States to be doing." Later, Rove said that "it is demeaning the office of the president by taking the president and moving him from a person who ought to be talking to everybody and communicating through every available channel to saying, 'If you oppose me, if you question me, if you're too tough on me, by gosh, me and my people are not going to -- are not going to come on. We're going to penalize you.' And that just is wrong, fundamentally wrong." [Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, 10/18/09]
Malkin: "[I]f I were [a] media outlet that had journalists who asked tough questions, yeah, I'd be losing a little sleep." On the October 22 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade discussed with Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin her list of the three questions she "wants the White House to answer," one of which was, Kilmeade said, "Hasn't your White House set a dangerous First Amendment, Mr. President, undermining precedent in publicly declaring which news organizations are legitimate and which are not?" Kilmeade said to Malkin, "Why ask that question?" Malkin replied, "Well, because I think it goes to the heart of this entire controversy. This isn't about just one news network, this is about the entire ... mainstream media. And when you have official White House spokespeople defining what journalism is and what journalism isn't, it's not just one news network that should be worrying about this. And while President Obama may not be losing sleep, if I were another media outlet that had journalists who asked inconvenient questions of this White House, yeah, I'd be losing a little sleep over it." [Fox News' Fox & Friends, 10/22/09]
"Truth"? Fox repeatedly promotes falsehoods and smears
Beck falsely claimed Anita Dunn "worships" "her hero" Mao Zedong. Throughout most of his October 15 Fox News program, Beck falsely claimed that White House communications director Anita Dunn "worships" and "idolizes" "her hero" Mao Zedong. In fact, in the video that Beck aired as evidence to support his claims, Dunn offered no endorsement of Mao's ideology or atrocities -- rather, she commented that Mao and Mother Teresa were her two of her "favorite political philosophers," and based on short quotes from them, she offered the advice that "you don't have to follow other people's choices and paths" or "let external definition define how good you are internally."
Fox hosts falsely claimed that Kevin Jennings covered up sexual assault. Sean Hannity repeatedly ignored evidence to falsely claim that Jennings, director of the Department of Education's Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, ignored the statutory rape of a 15-year-old student, even advancing the falsehood after the claim had been widely debunked. Fox News hosts Bill Hemmer and Bret Baier also advanced this smear. Additionally, Hannity and Fox News contributor Kirsten Powers also smeared Jennings -- who counseled someone who was of age at the time and who has said he did not have a sexual relationship -- with the outrageous suggestion that Jennings is comparable to film director Roman Polanski, who was charged with rape and pleaded guilty to having sex with a girl who was 13 at the time after allegedly plying her with drugs and alcohol.
Fox News ran with San Bernardino ACORN video without needed fact check. On September 15 and 16, Fox News devoted significant programming to conservative filmmaker James O'Keefe and Townhall.com columnist Hannah Giles' video of their interactions with a San Bernardino ACORN worker who claimed she murdered her ex-husband and gave advice on how to run a brothel, but stated after the video was released that she had merely been attempting to "shock them as much as they were shocking me." In running with the video, Fox News hosts frequently promoted the fake claim that the ACORN employee killed her ex-husband without fact-checking the allegation or indicating that they had contacted ACORN for a response. In fact, ACORN called the video "an obvious set of lies and manipulations," and the San Bernardino Police Department found her former husbands "alive and well."
"Death book" distortions abound on Fox News Sunday. On the August 23 edition of Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace hosted former Bush administration aide Jim Towey to discuss his Wall Street Journal op-ed, "The Death Book for Veterans," and in doing so promoted numerous distortions about an end-of-life educational booklet used by the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). In addition to forwarding the smear that the booklet is a "death book," Wallace promoted Towey's distortion that the booklet encourages veterans to "pull the plug" -- it doesn't; Wallace and Towey both suggested that the Bush administration suspended use of the booklet -- it didn't; and Wallace claimed that a VHA document requires doctors to direct veterans to the booklet -- it doesn't.
Beck claimed Van Jones was a "convicted felon." On his August 11 Fox News show, Beck accused Van Jones, whom he described as Obama's "green jobs czar," of being a "convicted felon ... who spent, I think, six months in prison after the Rodney King beating." In fact, as Eva Paterson, president and founder of the Equal Justice Society, has explained, "Van [Jones] has never served time in any prison. He has never been convicted of any crime."
Fox trumpets CAIR conspiracy theory charges made by author with anti-Islam history. Repeated Fox News segments reported that, in Bret Baier's words, "Republican lawmakers say the Council on American-Islamic Relations, CAIR, is trying to infiltrate Capitol Hill by placing interns in key positions," an allegation stemming from a right-wing book whose author has a history of making outrageous and anti-Islamic assertions and is published by WorldNetDaily, which has its own history of making outrageous allegations and inflammatory remarks. Moreover, the document that Republican Reps. Sue Myrick (NC), John Shadegg (AZ), Paul Broun (GA), and Trent Franks (AZ) cited as evidence of CAIR's alleged activities is stolen and does not support their claims.
Fox host Hill asked if the Obamas' fist bump was a "terrorist fist jab." During the June 6, 2008, edition of Fox News' America's Pulse, former host E.D. Hill teased an upcoming discussion by saying, "A fist bump? A pound? A terrorist fist jab? The gesture everyone seems to interpret differently." In the ensuing discussion with Janine Driver -- whom Hill introduced as "a body language expert" -- Hill referred to the "Michelle and Barack Obama fist bump or fist pound," adding that "people call it all sorts of things." Hill went on to ask Driver: "Let's start with the Barack and Michelle Obama, because that's what most people are writing about -- the fist thump. Is that sort of a signal that young people get?" At no point during the discussion did Hill explain her earlier reference to "a terrorist fist jab."
"Truth"? Fox News promotes GOP research, sometimes passed off as its own
Fox & Friends recited misleading GOP press release on stimulus. On October 22, Fox & Friends co-hosts Brian Kilmeade, Steve Doocy, and Gretchen Carlson parroted a House Republican press release and repeated its claim that the stimulus impact is "6 million jobs shy of what the administration promised us" since the administration stated "that 3.5 million jobs would be created. And, in fact, the United States has lost 2.7 million since the stimulus plan." However, the administration estimated that by 2011 -- not September 2009, when the 2.7 million job losses since February were recorded -- 3.5 million jobs would be created or saved by the stimulus compared to the number of jobs that would have existed at the end of 2010 had the government not passed the legislation.
Fox & Friends spent segment reading from RNC press release, touting GOP plan "looking out for the health of" seniors. On August 25, Fox & Friends' Carlson read from a Republican National Committee's press release calling for a "Health Care Bill Of Rights for Seniors." Fox & Friends also aired on-screen text summarizing the press release.
Fox News' Hemmer "[kept] track of the stimulus money" -- by lifting research from GOP website. On April 23, America's Newsroom co-host Bill Hemmer repeatedly suggested information about four "interesting" projects reportedly funded by the economic recovery act was obtained through Fox News' own research, even though nearly all of the information Hemmer mentioned, as well as that included in on-screen text and graphics, first appeared on Rep. Eric Cantor's Republican Whip website.
America's Newsroom pushed discredited GOP calculation of Obama's cap-and-trade proposal. On April 2, guest host Alisyn Camerota asserted that the cost of Obama's cap-and-trade proposal "would be $3,100 per U.S. household." The claim was advanced by the House Republican Conference in a March 23 "Talking Points" press release, and the Republicans reportedly purported to back up the claim by pointing to a 2007 study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). But MIT professor John Reilly, one of the authors of the study, has disputed the GOP's calculation, stating that his study "has been misrepresented" and that the Republicans' claim of an average household cost of $3,128 was significantly higher than the correct figure. PolitiFact.com rated the $3,100 figure a "pants on fire" falsehood.
Cut and paste: "FOXfact[s]" about GOP budget nearly identical to GOP Rep. Ryan's op-ed. While interviewing Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) on April 1, Fox News' Happening Now aired "FOXfact[s]" purporting to describe facts about the House Republican budget. However, all of the seven on-screen "FOXfact[s]" were nearly identical to portions of an op-ed Ryan published in that day's Wall Street Journal. The "FOXfact[s]" were aired again later that day.
Fox passed off GOP press release as its own research -- typo and all. In purporting to "take a look back" at how the economic recovery plan "grew, and grew, and grew," on February 10 Fox News' Jon Scott referenced seven dates, as on-screen graphics cited various news sources from those time periods -- all of which came directly from a Senate Republican Communications Center press release. A Fox News on-screen graphic even reproduced a typo contained in the Republican press release. The following day, Scott apologized -- for running the typo. Scott's apology was criticized by Washington Post media critic and CNN host Howard Kurtz, who said: "We sometimes jab at the pundits for using talking points, but in the case of Fox News anchor Jon Scott, it was literally true this week. ... You should be apologizing for using partisan propaganda from the GOP without telling your viewers where it came from. Talk about missing the point."
"Truth"? Fox News guilty of doctoring quotes
Fox News doctored Biden quote to falsely claim he was praising economy in March. On March 16, Live Desk co-host Martha MacCallum claimed that "after weeks of economic doom and gloom, the Obama administration is now singing a slightly different tune. Take a look at what was said in recent interviews this weekend." Live Desk then aired clips of administration officials purportedly giving an optimistic view of the economy, which included video of Vice President Joe Biden stating, "The fundamentals of the economy are strong." However, Biden did not make those remarks during an "interview" that weekend; he made them at a September 2008 campaign event in which he criticized statements by Sen. John McCain. MacCallum apologized the next day.
Fox News reporter distorted Obama comments on health care. On April 24, White House correspondent Wendell Goler cropped a comment by Obama and took it out of context -- effectively reversing the statement's meaning -- to falsely suggest that Obama supports creating a health care system "like the European countries."
Happening Now cropped clips of Obama to promote "another apology tour." On the June 2 Happening Now, Scott asked if "the president's upcoming trip [to Europe and the Middle East will] be what conservatives might call another apology tour," and both Scott and co-host Jane Skinner aired cropped clips of Obama's remarks from an April 3 speech in France to falsely suggest that Obama criticized only the United States. In doing so, Happening Now joined conservative commentators and Fox News hosts who have cropped or misrepresented Obama's overseas remarks to falsely suggest, in the words of Hannity, that Obama was "blam[ing] America first" and, more broadly, that Obama's earlier overseas trip constituted an "apology tour."
"Truth"? Fox News engages in outrageous, baseless attacks on President Obama
Kilmeade wondered if the Nobel Peace Prize "[has] anything to do with delay of the deployment of 40,000 troops." On the October 9 Fox & Friends, Kilmeade stated: "I'm looking at the charter, and we're just getting this now, but this guy Alfred Nobel stipulated the Peace Prize should go to the person who will have done the most or the best work of the fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses. I'm wondering, does that have anything to do with the delay of the deployment of 40,000 troops in Afghanistan, because that was his big postulization [sic] over the last week or so. Should I put more troops in?" [Fox & Friends, 10/9/09]
Hannity said "it sounds" like Obama "is more concerned about bringing the Olympics to Chicago than winning the war in Afghanistan." On the September 28 edition of his Fox News program, Hannity criticized Obama for purportedly backing away from "the type of commitment" to winning the war in Afghanistan that he expressed during the 2008 presidential campaign. During the segment, Hannity asserted: "Now, it sounds to me like the president's more concerned about bringing the Olympics to Chicago than winning the war in Afghanistan."
Fox News contributor Johnson suggested Obama pressure led CBO to score Baucus plan favorably. On the September 18 edition of Fox & Friends, guest co-host and serial health care misinformer Peter Johnson Jr. suggested that Sen. Max Baucus' (D-MT) health care plan received a favorable score from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) because the office was "taken to the woodshed by the president earlier in the summer, when they uncovered hundreds of billions of dollars of real deficits in the House plan." Johnson offered no criticism of the scoring by the CBO -- which analyzed the Baucus plan when it was introduced, not "after being taken to the woodshed" -- and which is an independent agency that reports to Congress. [Fox & Friends, 9/18/09]
Beck claimed Obama's "civilian national security force" is "what Hitler did with the SS," "what Saddam Hussein" did. On the August 27 edition of his Fox News program, Beck discussed Obama's call for a "civilian national security force" -- which was a reference to expanding the foreign service, AmeriCorps, and the Peace Corps. Beck stated: "I'm finding this -- this is the hardest part to connect to. Because this is -- I mean, look, you know, David [Bellavia, former Army staff sergeant], what you just said is, you said, 'I'm not comparing' -- but you are. I mean, this is what Hitler did with the SS. He had his own people. He had the brownshirts and then the SS. This is what Saddam Hussein -- so -- but you are comparing that. And I -- I mean, I think America would have a really hard time getting their arms around that."
Beck: Obama is a "racist," has "exposed himself as a guy" with "a deep seated hatred for white people." Appearing as a guest on the July 28 edition of Fox & Friends, Beck said: "This president, I think, has exposed himself as a guy -- over and over and over again -- who has a deep-seated hatred for white people, or the white culture -- I don't know what it is. But you can't sit in a pew with Jeremiah Wright for 20 years and not hear some of that stuff and not have it wash over." He later added, "I'm not saying that he doesn't like white people. I'm saying he has a problem. He has a -- this guy is, I believe, a racist. Look at the way -- look at the things he has been surrounded by." [Fox & Friends, 7/28/09]
"we're asking the tough questions" or "reporting what others will not "
Yeah..during the previous 8 years ......not so much
Hey, leave Dick Cheney's and Alan Keyes' daughters alone!
I commend you on your zero-tolerance stance against racism. That's nice to see. But that's only one in the panoply of transgressions committed by News Corp against individuals, and indeed, the entire nation.
Of course, this shouldn't exempt them from ethical behaviors - and their aggressive advocacy of ingorant positions seemingly for the pure sake of being against the president and the Democratic party is irresponsible at best.
Fox News is not a real news organization.
Case closed.
So consider the source.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xv_TozVnpE4
What were you there to protest?
The current administration has not been challenged. They hate FNC because the ask questions from the other side, the conservative side.
So what? Are leftist liberals actually afraid of questions? If you are so confident in your philosophies...simply answer they questions. That is what Fox News is asking of Obama. Simple.
And, if anyone had bothered to pay attention to conservative views...the Bush administration was not adored as implied. Bush approved the TARP funds...Bush wanted amnesty for illegals...Bush was not the poster child of conservatism, and many (not all) at FNC said that.
Folks need to grow up. Obama needs to grow up. Unless he is afraid, he should actively seek out the opposition in an attempt to persuade them to his point of view.
I'd also appreciate a link to the quote from anyone in the news or opinion side of FauxNoise who either reported, mentioned, inquired about or criticized the $5.2 TRILLION in new Federal Debt added during the Dubya years. If you can't find $5.2 I'd settle for $4 TRILLION.
If you don't comprehend the distinction I can't help you.
Obama is, for better or worse, the President. He needs to have the stones to answer tough questions. If you remember, the progressives asked tough questions of Bush over the surge. They never asked with the fluff crap you pretend is required now for Obama.
I do understand. I understand that there are two very divisive factions forming in this nation, and people need to understand that BOTH views have supporters, about half of the nation, and both should be heard.
The discussion about "tough questions" is just a pretense to justify right-wing bias. Of course he should get tough questions, from all news outlets. The issue here is that the questions should stem from an obligation to inform the public and hold all public servants accountable, not to serve one political party over another as FOX so clearly does.
If conservatives want to justify the arguments that this network or that is genuinely "in the bag" for the left, then they should make that argument. News networks should be objective, period. What you can't do is to say that some news coverage should have a right-wing slant to it because the other side is represented elsewhere. Two wrongs don't make a right, even if you can support your charges.
What part of this would you disagree with, and why? Please be specific.
Fox asks leading questions that are so tainted with right wing extremist propsganda it makes the questions absurd. The fox 'questions' are based on twisted reality, distortions, and right wing propaganda, and are stated in such a way that sets up whoever is to answer to sound negative. That is NOT news reporting, that is propaganda baiting.
If you actually tried to listen to what President Obama says instead of listen to what Fox want you to think, you might get your answers. Why don't you try going to the source directly, go to whitehouse.gov and see what they are saying about Afghanistan if that is of so much concern to you. You can also try going to other non-fox news sources and you might find your answers. Or try going to non U.S. news sources and you will find a treasure of news that is never even reported here in the U.S. about what we are going around the world. Try MINDTV Global.
"I do understand. I understand that there are two very divisive factions forming in this nation, and people need to understand that BOTH views have supporters, about half of the nation, and both should be heard."
This is pure BS. There are MANY different viewpoints in this country, but people like the small percentage of folks who watch Fox BELIEVE that there are only two because that's what they want you to believe. You are, however, again reinforcing the fact that Fox is an opinion network and not a legitimate news network. NEWS is not "fair and balanced." News is news. Presentation of Opinion CAN be fair and balanced, but rarely is.
Yes, there are many individual viewpoints. Great insight, genius. But, my point is that two MAIN factions are forming, conservative and liberal. Yes, there are some religious zealots, anarchists, terrorists, etc...they are the extreme edges. But most independents are being pulled from the center to liberal or conservative viewpoints.
You can belittle FNC is you like, but poll numbers don't lie. Even being on cable only, FNC get's 3.5 million views nightly for prime time. And, a recent gallup poll shows that 40% of Americans identify themselves as conservative, and only 20% as liberal.
Given that...I would have to say FNC reflects more of the average than you think...
There are no troops available right now to send. Even if he made the decision tomorrow, there are no spare troops until about 9 months from now. So, it doesn't matter if he makes the decision several weeks from now - if he waits until after the Afghanistan election. This 'delay' costs us nothing.
And what does it gain us? It gets us a better understanding of all the options available and all the potential pitfalls of each choice. It gets us a government in Afghanistan. It gets us thoughtful leadership rather than kneejerk reactions like the previous administration gave us!
And you're crazy if you think we believe your distortions about the Gallup poll.
The real numbers recently? 20% Republican. 33% Democratic. 40% independent.
Republicans made "liberal" a dirty word. If you ask people what they specifically believe in without labels, more than 50% support liberal principles.
And FoxNews doesn't support conservative principles. They are anti-Democrats, and anti-Obama.
I have heard all these questions asked by FNC personalities, but never by any other news outlet to Obama. If I have missed HIS response, I would appreciate the reference.
As for the Bush administration spending, many stories ran on FNC around the time of the TARP bailouts, but they started all the way back on Sept 29, 2004, when Bill O'Reilly interviewed Bush and pressed on deficits, tax cuts, and war spending. It's not difficult to find if you look...
Aside from that, you're numbers are completely false. I went to www.whitehouse.gov, and downloaded the PDF of the budget report, and used simple math to see that the total deficit from years 2000-2008 was 1.867 trillion.
Let me help you:
First, before you ask questions related to campaign promises, perhaps you should review those promises mad by the past 10 (or so) presidents vfersus what they have done once confronted with the complexities fo governing. Don't be stupid. Obama has probably delivered on more fo his promises than anyone in fifty years.
So, having discarded those absolutely nonsensical questions, let me help with the rest:
3. Who cares? Van Jones repudiated those statements publicly. Didn't you ever say anything you can see was stupid in retrospect? (Nevermind, you are still saying things that are stupid.)
4. The police DID act stupidly. All the guy had to do was back away and leave. Prof. Gates was in his own home. The cop wanted him to step outside to induce a Disturbing the Peace charge. Don't be such a tool. If it had happened to you, you would have acted the same way. If it had happened to a white guy, most of the country would have been irate. Whatever happened to the conservative ideal of property rights? Don't be such a tool. Apply conservative ideals to the situation and you will see that this is a completely stupid question, not a hard question at all.
5. Are you serious? The fundraising for the Health Care Reform legislation commences almost immediately - this is the only way to fund the start-up without incurring huge deficits. If we wait to do this, it will only ensure that more people die from inadequate care, that more households are bankrupted by exhorbitant medical bills, and that more people are denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, etc. Again, don't be stupid.
The answers to these supposedly "tough" questions have been available to you all along. Don't waste my president's time with your own stupidity, please.
That said, I will reply for the sport.
For questions 1 and 2, how does comparing Obama to previous presidents equate to answering the tough questions posed? It does not. According to Politifact.com, Obama has made 515 campaign promises, and kept 49...many of which are very small and inconsequential (like: "direct military leaders to end the war" and "give a speech to major Islamic group in first 100 days"). But, the two I specifically mentioned are more than just empty rhetoric, but are a key element in the "Hope and Change" promised. In fact, it was part of his BS to lure independents because he was "a different kind of politician". Well...guess what? He isn't.
3. Americans care. Americans care if part of the Presidential Administration are avowed communists. Don't you care? You should. And, Van Jones did NOT repudiate the comments. Have I ever said something silly...maybe. Have I ever declared I was a communist? No. A Marxist? No. Have I ever said Mao Tse-Tung was my favorite political philosopher? No. Its one thing to pull a Joe Biden and say, "You cannot go to a 7/11 or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking." That said...Van Jones said WAY more than he was a communist. Look it up...This dude was bad news. Do you agree with his philosophies? If so, our conversation is over.
4. I didn't ask if you think the police acted "stupidly". Your response betrays you...You have ZERO evidence that the police were acting in a manner to "induce" anything. No, I would not have acted the same way. I would NOT have accused the police of being racist for simply responding to my home in an effort to protect me. I have no respect for anyone who believes otherwise. Conservative principles, of which you obviously know nothing, apply perfectly. Asking for identification and ensuring that the individual is safe has NOTHING in conflict with personal rights. Again...that aside, how does that excuse the President of the United States from saying, "I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that" and then passing judgement. Do you? If you do, then again, this conversation is over.
5. Yes, I'm serious. Trillions of dollars of cost, to supposedly save people...and we have to wait for 4 more years because the costs are so high. People in this country do not die from inadequate care. People may lose their house and money, but they do not die. Problems exist in the healthcare industry. That is a known. There are problems with socialist healthcare systems as well. This needs to be done correctly, with time and effort. But again, I don't want your opinion. I want Obama to answer this. I want him to answer questions that come from people who do not believe in Socialism. Our country was not founded on "spread the wealth". There is no "right" to healthcare. If you want one, add it to the Constitution.
You did not answer any question. You tried to dismiss me, and call me names...typical Saul Alinsky tactics.
Besides that, the law wouldn't apply to someone on their front porch arguing with police anyway. Someone familiar with the law, as Obama is, might very well know that and be able to conclude quite fairly that the police acted stupidly.So after people lose their house and money, health care becomes free? That's not a very compelling argument anyway, since any delay means that more people will lose their houses in the meantime, but I'm still curious how you think that works out. My wife, for instance, had double bypass surgery six years ago. She still needs a five thousand dollar test every other year to check her condition. Without insurance, and without adequate funds, how does that get covered? Even ignoring publicized cases such as the girl who died because her insurance wouldn't cover a liver transplant, your argument seems to rely on the presumption that nobody needs medical care for a serious, chronic illness and is also unable to pay for it.
Also, give us all a break with the "socialism" nonsense. Are all the countries that have public healthcare "socialist"? If not, then what's the point?
But, asking Gates to step outside was not "inducing" Gates to call a uniformed police officer a racist. That is ridiculous. And, Obama did not have the facts. Period. Obama did not know how confrontational Gates acted toward the officer. Obama did not know that Gates started the racist accusations simply because the officer was white, and Gates is a race-baiter. Obama cannot take the liberty to say equally racist remarks, such as the police acted stupidly and race was involved just because his friend is black.
As for healthcare...Again, my original premise is that the current situation is not optimal. No one denies that. If your wife went to a hospital, she would be treated. Chronic or catastrophic illness should be covered by insurance. I agree. But, that does not mean that I pay for it, does it? And I sure as hell shouldn't have to pay for everyones regualar checkups, should I?
Are those countries that have socialist healtcare systems completely socialist? No. Never said that. But, the healtcare systems of England, Canada, and Sweden are socialist. Do you want socialist healthcare?
Correction: if she went to a hospital E.R. without insurance, she would be stabilized, but not necessarily cured. That is all the 1986 E.R. law requires of hospitals. Anything else must be paid for, or it will not be provided to the uninsured patient.
The difference between a cure and being stabilized is huge. Example: a poor, uninsured person gets an infected, abcessed tooth, and goes to the E.R. when the pain becomes too much to bear. The cure for the condition is antibiotics and an appointment with a dentist to have the tooth pulled (and, ideally, replaced with a bridge or implant). Stabilizing the condition only requires antibiotics to get rid of the current infection, with possibly a cheap painkiller. The condition is not cured, though, and the infection is likely to recur, causing another expensive trip to the E.R. for the exact same non-cure stabilization.
You currently pay a portion of that catastrophic non-cure stabilization treatment for the uninsured, in the form of higher hospital fees charged to cover the hospital's budget when the uninsured are unable to pay their $5,000+ bills for each E.R. visit. Or in other words, all a public option does is reduce the amount of money you already pay for catastrophic care for the uninsured.
Estimates of how much money is saved for preventative care only end up not saving any money at all if the only costs calculated are short-term costs: giving the tests. This is like saying that seatbelts and airbags should not be required because they cost too much to install up front, which ignores the cost-savings to the consumer in not having to pay exorbitant E.R. bills in their next car accident.
Preventative checkups catch health conditions which are potentially expensive if left untreated, expenses which are currently picked up by taxpayers, either under our current socialized medicine system of Medicaid and Medicare, or the 1986 E.R. law and subsequent raising of hospital fees to make up for the uninsured who cannot pay their E.R. bills.
One other thing: your ivory tower is still serviced by poor people, uninsured or underinsured. Minimum wage workers make your food, take care of your kids, drive you around in their taxis and buses, and sell you stuff in your stores. When you pay for them to get regular checkups and regular vaccinations (such as the free "socialized medicine" H1N1 vaccine), you create what is called "herd immunity", which boils down to this: you are financing your own continued good health by financing the continued good health of others.
A public option is enlightened self-interest, where the individual with money spends a little bit of it to make sure he never comes in contact with any sick poor people.
Yes, we know, you simply wanted to throw out a baseless accusation and not have it challenged. Too bad, so sad.
And then, despite the fact that you 'claim' that you don't want to have a full debate on the topic, you can't resist throwing out a few more baseless talking points.
You have no credibility here. None.
And yeah, in the richest country in the world, people who can afford it should help subsidize the health care of those who cannot afford their own health care. That's the whole premise here. And yes, if someone can't afford to pay for their own regular check-ups, then yes, you should help pay for those too. That's part of the price for living in a rich society.
If you don't like that, go live in Somalia. You won't have to pay for police protection for anyone else - you'll just have to pay for your own. You can recruit yor own fire dept, as you surely wouldn't want to pay to perhaps protect someone else's dwelling!
Do you see how silly your argument is, that you shouldn't have to pay for the protections for fellow citizens? What if YOU lose your job and your health insurance, and then have a catastrophic illness. Who's supposed to pay for that, or should we let YOU die?
You selfish son of a gun.
This is the sort of thing that people don't take into account when asking "why should I pay for someone else?" Insurance companies and employers have made it clear that they will not take care of certain people, simply because money is more important than people's lives.
The lack of universally available preventative care does hurt people in this country. There are plenty of conditions out there that, when they reach the emergency stage, it simply is too late to do anything. Those people die and they would not have had they been able to afford regular check-ups and preventative care. Furthermore, this situation where people end up waiting until there is an emergency is a large part of our skyrocketing medical costs. Preventative measures often cost less than emergency ones. When people can't cover the emergency costs, they simply get passed on to people who can, raising costs on everyone.
A public option that provides basic preventative and emergency coverage to people who otherwise cannot obtain health insurance would alleviate this burden on the medical system and reduce medical expenses across the board. But we can't expect some members of our society to get behind this... oh no. They're utterly convinced that we're just a bunch of socialists who want to nationalize the entire system. To them, this is just an attempt to start us down a slippery slope to a system where government controls EVERYTHING.
But like all slippery slope arguments, their reasoning is fallacious. Heaven forbid that they belong to a society that is larger than themselves and God forbid that they recognize that part of being a contributing member of society includes duties and responsibilities. The worst part is that they cannot even understand the simple premise that when your neighbors are doing better, you are doing better as well.
You are much more secure being a rich person in a middle class neighborhood than you are when you are a rich person living in a poor neighborhood.
I forgot a c in that opening paragraph, apparently.
;)
It's quite obvious why you don't want to discuss that topic.
Is it "would" or "should"? People don't get bypass surgery in the ER. They'll stabilize you after a heart attack, but long-term solutions require insurance or deep pockets.
I'm curious what you recommend for people without insurance. Insurance "should" cover catastrophic illness, but who's paying for it? If insurance companies are forced to pay for people who don't pay into their system, how will that be sustained? And otherwise, the costs are spread out to the general public anyway.I have yet to hear an argument against it that doesn't rely heavily on an emotional reaction to the word "socialist". I'm not impressed with that. If it works in other countries, I have faith that our great system and our hard-working, intelligent people can figure out a way of making it work in the good old U.S. of A. as well. If it doesn't make the countries themselves socialist, then the United States would not be a socialist country either, so I fail to see the great concern.
The difference is that at least he has the integrity to own up to his mistakes when he makes them, unlike his predecessor. And I am sure that is very hard for people like you to handle, you don't know how to react when someone has the integrity and honesty to actually own up to their mistakes and evento apologize when warranted. I know it's tough but try to get used to it, and try to let things go you are going to give yourself a heart attack. And you don't want that! You might have to use your health insurance, and then they might cancel you for daring to be sick!
All developed nations and many developing nations have a form of universal health care system that works for them, there are several diffent models in practice right now, from the 100% government administerered single payer system to the public/private system of Denmark (where they have a public health insurance that competes with the private health insurance companies, and where the insurance industry has to comply with very strict pro-citizen regulations that protect citizens over the greed of the private industry.
OK, so if people with any kind of illness should be treated and not denied health insurance, who do you think will pay for it? certainly not the unregulated private health insurance industry, do you? They will only pass on the cost to the rest of their subscribers through increased insurance premiums--that is what will happen without a strong public health insurance option. You are going to pay for it regardless, so take your pick, pay for it more equitably or as we have been paying, through our noses. Yes, I would like a socialized health care.
Great commentary on not letting things go. This issue is so clearly raised out of petty partisanship and race-baiting ("Obama cannot take the liberty to say equally racist remarks...") that it's impossible to take anyone who does so as acting in good faith.
You are way too hung up on Van Jones! Yes, he did sign a petition and he did look into some communist group--then he decided it was not for him and that was that. You seem to forget that this is America, where we are all free to believe what we choose, and that includes believe in whatever political and economic ideology that best fits our needs. It is not against the law to look into the communist party or to show interest in it in this country, and it is not against the law to be politically active and then change your mind or your political views and change your political philosophy--or is it? Wan't Van Jones working in the Endowment for the Arts? how dangerous do you think he could be if even he was a "commuist sympathizer"?. It is more dangerous to do what Fox is doing--they are convicting someone because of their past interests and calling for a mob action against him by using all the necessary code words "communist" "crmininal" "jail time", etc.
Fox claimed that Van Jones was a criminal who had served in jail--that is factually false. THAT IS THE POINT, FOX USES FALSE INFORMATION TO PROMOTE THEIR RIGHT WING EXTREMIST AGENDA.
Actually, the "spread the wealth" comment was taken out of context from a conversation he was having with someone posing as a small business owner. I am sure the full clip of his conversaiton is in utube. However, the repbulicans are the ones who continued to use that phrase when speaking of President Obama. President Obama does not believe in what the republicans claim President Obama bleives in. Why don't you ask the republican party to show you instances when President Obama declared that he was going to indeed spread the wealth and take your money and give it to somebody else.
On the issue of "this country was not founded on "spread the wealth", think again. If you are so opposed to anything smelling of socilism (which is an economic concept and not a political one) then your should rip up your social security card, if you or your parents receive medicare, you should rip that up and refuse to receive it. Sign up for private trash pick up, and private police and public safety--and tell your local government that you will no longer accept protection from the police department, fire department, you want no public sanitation services near your house, you will no use public schools, libraries, parks, recreation centers, nor will you use public roads, highways or public transportation, or use public water or sewage systems. Then, once you have done that, you can then freely declare yourself totally anti-socialist and be proud of it.
Yes there is a right to health care! It is a human right. Our constitution gives all Americans the guarantee to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You can't have life, liberty or pursue happiness if you cannot have good health, and you cannot have good health if you cannot access affordable quality health care. Every other developed nation recognizes health as a right, why do you feel it is not a right? Why then are you OK with paying for health care for all our prisoners and even those imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay? But you don't feel its ok that every American citizen have access to affordable and quality health care? You might want to re-examine your priorities. Or you just have to wait until you get a terrible and incurable illness--then you will wake up.
Van Jones is not an avowed communist. Make a note of it.
People in this country do not die from inadequate care. - jstephens
So you're saying the Harvard study that shows 45,000 a year that die as bogus?
Gosh...kinda sounds like he WAS a communist. I guess your impilcation is that he is no longer a communist. True? I may have to concede on that...because while I believe that his efforts with STORM and many of his more recent statements still reflect communist values. And, I have never seen a direct quote from Van Jones saying he is NOT a communist. You are going on other statements, hoping that he has renounced his views.
Good try.
As for the report from Harvard, did you realize that it was actually produced by Physicians for a National Health Program, “the only national physician organization in the United States dedicated exclusively to implementing a single-payer national health program". So, yeah, I think its bogus.
And every study (nearly 100 have been done) has found that failure to have health insurance causes people to die.
Your smear of the people who did the study doesn't hold water. Again you don't know what you're talking about. The study was NOT produced by PNHP. You're either lying or too uninformed to be discussing this.
Factcheck.org says "PNHP didn't have anything to do with the study other than publicizing it after it was released. PNHP didn't fund it … didn't have anything to do with analysis."
What legislation has not had a five day review?
Controls on lobbyists have recently been tightened. That is a slippery population, paid to deliver, We haven't seen their last attempt at influence, and won't in the any near future.
Opperant word "was" a plain and simple communist. He moved on to capitalism from a green point of view. Communist's now suppy much of our comsumer goods. You have some problem with that? I do, but not because of the communist source.
He was imformed enough to say it was a stupid thing to do. I'd have to aggree. Lots of people otherwise very compitant and trustworthy do stupid professional things. The police are somehow exempt from this?
Something about 1.4 million a day spent to oppose it can be very compelling. Directly and indirectly.
If your famous tough questions to Obama are so easy to find, provide a link.
I can't comment on your deficit figures at this point. Opinion, I doubt you, and that's all it is, my opinion.
It shows major inclines in debt during the Reagan administration and both Bush administrations while showing a decline under Carter and Clinton.
Right wing talking points tell me that Democrats like to tax and spend while Republicans try to be financially sound.
Is this graph implying that the people who spread those talking points are "liars"?
Obama said he didn't know if racism had played a part in the policeman's actions. He did not say he "did not know the facts of the situation."
If you have any desire to be taken seriously, you'll have to try a lot harder than that.
You don't know the critical distinction that the federal deficit is not the federal debt. My numbers were understated.
When G.W. Bush took office the federal debt at the end of FY 2001 was $5,732 billion. When he left office his FY2009 obligations left a total federal debt of FY 2009 $11.2 billion - that is at least $5.5 TRILLION. I found this in a minute. A bit more forensic accounting may uncover another hundred billion or so.
The missing trillions were "borrowed" from the Social Security revenues and transferred to pay for current operations. In simple terms, Bush stole money from grandma and grandpa to give a tax break to people like Paris Hilton.
We have no fear of questions - in fact, Obama has already faced more questions from Fox and from opposition at town halls than Bush did in 8 years. Obama has called on Major Garrett at a press conference - and Gibbs does nearly every day. Obama met with condservative reporters at a dinner party at George Will's house months ago (more talking to the opposition than the opposition ever did.
Hannity routinely slices and dices the president's speeches, Beck calls him a racist, and Wallace goes out of his way to lie about the health Care Reform packages and the VA.
Why on earth should the White House go out of its way for Fox. Fox has an agenda - and it has nothing to do with conservatism (or they would be more supportive of the Commander in Chief during wartime). Don't kid yourself. The responsible voices fo conservatism are in the print media, not on cable.
Furthermore, Fox might have the best ratings of cable news outlets, but they rank fourth when stacked against the broadcast networks. Throw in the circulations of the major newspapers in this country, and Fox viewers are clearly a very small minority. Should he expend much energy for a group that is less than 3 percent of the electorate and less than 1% of the total US population? Why, that would mean he should also go out of his way to represent other marginalized populations, as well - heck, there are far more Muslim Americans than Fox viewers. Maybe President Obama should choose between Sharia or Fox? Won't that be fun?
Get a clue.
This is rich...No administration in HISTORY has called out one news network as being mean. Never.
Whiney bloggers need to differentiate the opinion shows, like Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly, from the hard news. No one says Beck is news, as no one can say Olbermann is news (or even a good human being). You make yourself look as bad as the administration when you complain.
You are so delusional if you think that Obama has answered tough questions. I'm laughing so hard, I can barely type. And to say that conservative voices are in the print media...HAHAHA. Who? Are you absolutely insane?
As for ratings...Duh. They are on cable only. You can't be serious on this, can you?
Keep hoping that conservative voices are 1% of the nation. You know that is not true, but if it makes you feel better, go for it.
I am not complaining about the content of Fox - you can try to find where I did that, but you will fail. I am complaining that Fox whines for being called out for their partisan hackery (as do all the whiney Foxbots).
if you think President Obama has not answered the tough questions, you are either not paying attention or you have no-one to blame but Fox. Major Garrett is at the White House all the time - he has asked multiple questions of Gibbs and has asked at least one question at a presidential press conference (with a follow-up, I believe).
What hard question would YOU ask of him? The hard questions have nothing to do with socialism, tea parties, fascism, FEMA internment camps, birth certificates, or any of the myriad of bogus assertions by both journalists and commentators on Fox.
I have no confusion at all between the two. The distinction is so thoroughly blurred by Fox that I defy you to even tell me the names of three reporters working for Fox without using Google. such a small percentage of their air time is devoted to hard news that it isn't even worth discussing - and most of the news reports either deal with balloon boys, car chases or reporting upon what Fox commentators have said.
I never said that conservative voices were less than 1% of the nation. Intelligent conservatives avoid Fox as assiduously as liberals do. You really need to brush up on your reading skills - or just stop trying to read between my words.
And if you want to see President Obama answering the tough questions, you need only tune in to one of the actual news networks or one of the three broadcast news shows. Just don't expect him to answer the silly questions posed by the fringe.
Finally, if you think that President Obama is a liberal (which you and Fox seem to imply all the time) you are completely delusional and you should seek help. He has ruled in the middle. He has attempted to be nonpartisan but has been thwarted by the screaming whiners of Fox and talk radio who believe just because they are loud they somehow constitute some sort of majority.
keep thinking that. Elections are won in the middle - not the left or right - and you and your whining buddies are pretty much guaranteeing that the middle will not vote Republican. Well done. Only 20% of the electorate will admit to being Republican. And you Foxbots can't even recognize how bad that is for you, let alone think of a way to stop the bleeding.
But back to where you started your bibbling snotfest:
You are completely correct, because you will not find a single quote from this administration calling Fox "mean". You won't find a quote from me calling them "mean". But don't try to revise history - Nixon (another fine Republican) attempted to use the IRS against the press, Bush effectively locked MSNBC out of the discussion (among a litany of other efforts to manipulate the media), and most Republicans currently in positions of power or influence in Washington refuse to go on the Rachel maddow show because they know that they will be eviscerated and that their positions will not stand the scrutiny of someone with intelligence.
I'm assuming you know of the Google? Here are a few key phrases you should type into the search box:
"nattering babobs of negativism"
"Abraham Lincoln + Copperhead newspapers"
"Dana Perino + MSNBC"
"George Bush + Al Jazeera"
Beck makes patently false allegations against individuals and organizations that are then covered by the so-called news shows on Fox as news; Olbermann does political commentary on news stories that are publically available before the show airs. See, Beck makes crap up from whole cloth, while Olbermann talks about what made the news. I really hope you can see a difference.
False. Conservatives don't have a sense of humor.
That's the Scarecrow's younger, dumber second cousin, right there. The statement wasn't that conservative voices are 1% of the nation, but rather that Fox viewers are 1% of the nation. That's got to be the clumsiest conflation I've seen all week. Fail.
That would be what you have been doing here and what people of your ilk do on a regular basis. It's not what those on the left typically do.
There's a huge difference between documenting the slimy way that FoxNews has misbehaved and whining.
MMFA has already documented the similarities between the opinion shows and the 'news' shows. It's a strawman argument to claim that we don't recognize the difference between the two. Only an ignorant person wouldn't know that. And there's no comparison between Olbermann and Beck. One uses facts, discusses issues in a fair way, and doesn't lie, distort or omit relevant info. The other is Beck.
Oh, and again, if you are watching Fox because you believe they are giving the "conservative" perspective, then you are no conservative, just a groupie.
You right-wingers have a monopoly on whining. It's pretty much all you folks have anymore.
Just unbelievable how you will take any angle, no matter how contradictory your premises, to leverage your story of liberals as bad guys.
I see nothing particularly "well said" about that.
This is so typical of Conservatives. When the guy they elected is popular, it's evidence that Americans embrace Conservatism. "See? Bush is really popular and he's a Conservative, that proves Americans are Conservative! Re-Elect Bush!" But when his popularity plummets, suddenly it's "oh, well, that's because he's not really a Conservative!"
Conservatives also cling to the belief that if ONLY the Republicans would nominate pure-blood Conservatives, they'd win every election. Ford, Bush I, Dole, McCain all lost because they weren't conservative ENOUGH. They point to 1980 and 1984 (and conveniently ignore 1964) in making this case- never mind that to lionize Reagan, they must ignore all the Un-Conservative things Reagan did during his term (amnesty for illegals, tax increases, adventurism overseas- you know, the same stuff they are happy to attack other Republicans for.)
Stop living in your little fantasy world, Conservatives.
I am so sick of the growing extremism from the republican party! You are the people who need to grow up! There is a huge difference between disagreeing on political ideologies and campaigning for the failure of the President of OUR country--just because he belongs to another political party. You people seem to forget that OUR President, yes, the President of the United States, was democratically elected by the American people. As an American citizen (I assume you are)you are to respect the vote of the country and hence our democratically elected President. By trying to destroy him and anything he tried to do to help our country out of the Bush-era mess, you are in essence, trying to destroy our country. Is your loyalty for your chosen political party stronger than your loyalty to your country? if so, you may want to revisit your direction.
BTW, you just stated EXACTLY why Fox is not a legitimate "news" network. "NEWS" does not have a "view." News is news. OPINION has "views".
The junk that Fox News spews and the voices it hosts are an absolute insult to real conservatism. The same goes for Limbaugh and his ilk.
It cracks me up that real conservatives are now told we are liberals and part of the left. I embrace it, personally - there's no arguing with people who are hard set in their idiocy. I've gotten tired of trying to defend why I should be reckoned as part of a group that's done its damned best to alienate me.
However, those who still believe in Real Conservatism are, like Goldwater, now called 'liberals', as noted, by the Wingnut Wing of the right wing.
Is there a literate neocon in the house?
One impossible job at a time, please.
At the best it is obscene, and at the worst, it is a national embarrassment of our political maturity and it promotes a negative stereotype of traditional conservative beliefs if all the ongoing nonsense might even possibly be digested externally (or internally) at its face value.
O'Reilly and Hannity rant and rave about how liberals and Democrats are screwing up the nation. It's always opinion mixed with facts or lies. And notice that Republicans get a free pass, unless they cross the line and side with the facts. Then they have a nice echo chamber debate or scream a guest with an opposing view (i.e., the truth). By the end of the hour, the line between fact and opinion is completely lost.
Just the respect factor for guests with an opposing view should tell you all you need to know about Fox. When Maddow called the Freedom Works fella a "parasite", I was shocked at her candor. But there was no overt hostility in this assessment. More like frustration at his lack of candor. That I can accept. Barely, and only in extreme cases. As a regular format, I would stop watching if Rachel became Wally George.
Randy
Randy
You know what is tragic of all this? Issues that are seriously crippling every part of our society and every citizen of this country, such as health care among others, are being shoved around and dismissed as unimportant to the overall health of our country (both economically and medically) by one political party who believes waging mortal war against our democratically elected President because he belongs to another political party is more important than the health and well being of the citizens of this nation. To these false 'patriots' I ask: is your loyalty to your chose political party more important than your loyalty and love of your country? If so, you took the wrong turn somewhere along the road and you might want to check your map. When the going gets tough, your political party is not going to stand up for you, nor will it have your back when you or your loved ones encounter a personal or financial catastrophy, your country on the other hand will always be there...
Was that so hard?
As someone else said, Fox is not entitled to their own facts. There is only one set of those, and Fox constantly skirts, or destroys, or doens't even address facts in their opinion/commentary shows AND their news shows as well, it is rampant, as it was during the Clinton years of things they made up. The conservative media did such a good job at making things up about President Clinton, that there are still people today who think that Clinton had Vince Foster killed, or that he was convicted of something relating to Whitewater, or that Travelgate actually happened, or that Sandy Berger stole documents for Clinton from the National Archives, or that Hillary had an FBI list of people she didn't like (all of those are false by the way, and things that nobody was convicted over within the Clinton administration). These are also the same folks who keep saying Gore said he invented the internet (he never said it). And so on.
I would encourage FoxNews to ask actual real tough questions, hold our politicians and President accountable, that's the job of news organizations, as well as everyday people like us. Problem is, FoxNews isn't doing that. They're just making stuff up.
It's also funny that when Bush was in office, he had conservative media people into the White House several times over the years, and NEVER, repeat, NEVER had the liberal equivalent to come in and meet with him as a small group. Obama, has already had conservative media people into the White House, and during the transition so that he could pick their brains, debate them on issues, and see what they had to say. Sure, he's also had liberal folks in as well, but the difference is, he's had the so called opposition in.
If an administration (and I would say this for ANY administration) cannot call out the lies being told about it, who can? If you're being attacked on a personal and policy level, then by all means, there should be defense. It doesn't mean you're trying to silence them, or put them out of business (our elected government has freedom of speech too you know), it means that they are confronting them head on, as they should. This is how it works, and it's not unprecedented in our history, far from it. Heck, John Adams jailed journalists for talking bad about him.
Funny how they expect that standard only to apply to people that are to the left of them.
It's sad more than anything.