Fox News' declaration that election results mean "Obamacare" is dead is undermined by facts
Following an attack that conservatives previewed prior to the elections, Fox News and other right-wing media have seized on gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey to baselessly declare, in Dick Morris' words, that the results were a "deathblow to Obamacare" and have argued that the election should send a message to moderate Democrats. But exit polls do not support these claims, showing that in both states, the voters who cited health care as a top concern sided with the Democrat in the race.
Conservative media declare VA, NJ elections show "Obamacare" dead
Fox News graphic: If GOP wins VA, NJ governor races, "no gov't-run option" in health care reform. As an example, during the November 2 edition of Fox News' Your World, an on-screen graphic read, "If GOP wins both races" in Virginia and New Jersey, "Impact on health care: no govt-run option." [Your World with Neil Cavuto, 11/2/09]
Hannity to NJ listeners: "Get to the polls" and "stop Obamacare in its tracks." On Election Day, Sean Hannity addressed New Jersey voters on his radio show : "If you want change, you better get to the polls. These final minutes matter, these final couple of hours matter. Get to the polls. It's -- you can literally stop Obamacare in its tracks. Now, even if it's close, I think it still has the net effect of doing that." [ABC Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show, 11/3/09]
Carlson: "[T]he elections last night may have a big impact on those Blue Dog Democrats." On Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson stated: "[T]he elections last night may have a big impact on those Blue Dog Democrats -- the conservative Democrats -- in the way in which they approach health care now. Because if they think that the tide was changing, even though it was only two states from last night, they may be more apt to listen to the American people in their states who are saying, hold on, let's not spend so much money." [Fox News' Fox & Friends, 11/4/09]
Doocy: "[G]iven the dynamics of what happened," don't "be surprised" if senators "start sounding more like Joe Lieberman." Also on Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy said of the election results: "[D]on't be surprised, given the dynamics of what happened in those stunning GOP wins last night, if some senators start siding and start sounding more like Joe Lieberman. You know, why do we have to change everything when it comes to health care? Maybe we should just do it incrementally." [Fox & Friends, 11/4/09]
Dick Morris: "A deathblow to Obamacare." In a November 4 New York Post column, Morris wrote:
Chris Christie's gutsy win in New Jersey puts the arrogant big spender Jon Corzine in his place. But it is the election in Virginia that probably has more to say to marginal Democratic congressmen considering how to vote on health-care reform.
[...]
Until last night, Democratic moderates, the so-called blue dogs, could bask in the light of their candidate's success in 2008. But now they must hear hoof beats behind them. The party discipline on which Obama depends to pass a health-care program that Americans reject by 42 percent for, 55 percent against (Rasmussen again) will only work if beleaguered Democratic incumbents can wrap themselves in Obama's cloak and tough out the popular criticism.
[...]
In the coming weeks, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will be asking their troops to cast potentially career-ending votes for health-care changes, Medicare cuts, higher taxes and fines on the uninsured. Whether they take that risk depends on their faith in Obama's drawing power.
Fox News contributor Pat Caddell: "[T]here are heavy implications on this for health care." Caddell said of the election results: "I do think there are heavy implications on this for health care. ... If I were not only a Blue Dog Democrat, you look at what happened in the coal country in the western part of Virginia, which, in fact, Democrats often have never lost, lost last night, I would worry. But I'll tell you what. It's not just the Blue dogs. It's in these Northern, Midwestern suburbs where liberal democrats sit, and those voters looked like they are very unhappy about things."
Morrissey: Results "huge blow to Obama and his agenda," specifically "ObamaCare and cap-and-trade." Ed Morrissey wrote of the election results on his Hot Air blog and asserted: "Being the President's 'partner' on his radical agenda is not a winning position; it wasn't for Corzine in what should have been a secure blue state, and it certainly won't be in moderate or conservative districts and states held by Democrats in the House and Senate. That is a huge blow to Obama and his agenda, as Democrats now have to consider unpopular bills for ObamaCare and cap-and-trade in an entirely new light. If they fall in behind Obama instead of listening to their constituents, they will find themselves in retirement after the 2010 midterms. That's the big lesson, and it will not be lost on moderate Democrats." [Hot Air, 11/4/09]
Exit polls show that voters concerned with health care sided with Democrat
NJ: 78 percent of health care voters voted for Corzine. According to New Jersey exit polls, 17 percent of voters indicated that "health care" was the "one issue" that "mattered most in deciding how you voted for governor." Of that 17 percent, 78 percent voted for the Democrat, Jon Corzine. From the exit poll (as published by The New York Times):
VA: 51 percent of health care voters voted for Deeds. According to Virginia exit polls, 24 percent of respondents indicated that "health care" was the "one issue" that "mattered most in deciding how you voted for governor." Of that 24 percent, 51 percent voted for the Democrat, Creigh Deeds. From the exit poll (as published by The New York Times):
It's time to grow a set, and pass some health care reform and make some progress on some other issues, Republicans and Conservatives and Right-Wingers and Tea-Baggers be damned.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Give the people that ELECTED them something to be happy about.
The democrats have worked for decades (successfully) to flood this country with tens of millions of people from the third world so that they could then say "look at all of these poor, uninsured people..something must be done!" And that's when the statists get what they want: a step closer to a totalitarian government.
That's what most of you brainwashed ninnies don't get. Big government means big costs, bigtime intrusion into private affairs, and the diminishing of freedom.
A note to remember: "Those who cannot feed the ones they breed make a world in need".
But oh, boy! would you fringe radicals just love to kill you some libruls and "take your country back" so you could supplant our democratic government with some quasi-fascist form of capitalist rule. If only you could shoot at us without us shooting back. Hey, you could bust into a church, like your boy in Tennessee did, and kill unarmed liberals. That would be more your speed.
And don't come back and tell me about being over the top, not when you come here talking your outlandish crap about liberals the way you just did. With all your ridiculous, paranoid ramblings about your fellow Americans wanting a totalitarian state, you have no room to complain. Idiot.
A civil war could be averted by achieving a cold war-like nuclear balance of power, or "mutually assured destruction" between the seceeded American free states and the socialist states that remain.
There is no time left to argue with misguided, but determined leftists.
If such a revolution does happen, The American free states will have to heavily guard the borders to keep those from the communist states from illegally entering to look for a "better life" after the socialist country of their own making inevitably winds up a bankrupt, decaying nightmare.
You have one thing right. Progressives are determined to rescue this country from the decades of jungle law conservatism that has cast our society into an economic abyss and calloused our hearts for our fellow man.
In fact, much of Obama's eroding approval ratings are linked to him not being liberal enough and pushing for big change.
I know at this point I am discouraged that he is not responding to the pressure from the left on healthcare but is compromising away effective reform to the right.
Please provide evidence of your fact, if you can.
You jumped the shark the other day when you quoted that tiny snippet of Barack's quote about the post office.
You sir, are a lying piece of crap.
That statement is simply ignorant. First of all, Obama didn't win the Presidency by converting the majority of America to rabid liberals. He didn't win by running on a hard left platform. If that is what some think America wanted, then why didn't Kucinich win?
Obama won because he won the Independent vote in conjunction with a phenomenal grass roots campaign which turned out tons of first time voters and those who haven't voted in a while. He won on a promise of changing the tone of politics. He won because he is highly charismatic and has the ability to energize people. Admittedly, he did promise to enact a overhaul of healthcare, ending the war in Iraq, and a bottom up economic plan, which are left of center policy stances. But, It is ridiculous to assert that Obama is losing support because he isn't Liberal enough.
Let's be honest, the people in that poll cited above, may disapprove of his job performance because he hasn't be liberal enough, but job approval and support are two different things in politics. Those people may be disappointed in his job performance but, they aren't going to support the GOP in 2012 because he isn't "liberal enough."
Randy
The results of elections can't be directly correlated to approval numbers. Especially when it's an election for governor in a state like New Jersey or Virginia versus a national election.
And it's undeniable that a good part of Obama's eroding approval ratings are from liberals who want him to be more liberal and more forceful.
What is ridiculous to assert is that Obama's numbers aren't going down because he's losing support at both ends, from independents who think he's gone too far too fast, and from progressives Democrats who think he hasn't gone far enough, fast enough.
too liberal, not liberal enough, or just about right for the country?
Oct. 30–Nov. 1 July 31-Aug 3 Mar. 12-15
2009 2009 2009
Too liberal 42% 40% 36%
Not liberal enough 14% 8% 5%
Just about right 44% 50% 58%
No opinion 1% 2% 1%
here's the link to the cnn poll
It shows a definite trend, a jump of 6 points concerning Obama not being liberal enough, which happens to correspond with a 6 point decline in people's belief that his policies are just right. Meanwhile, the too liberal crowd jumped just 2 points.
Regarding this claim in this thread that you now seemingly accept as fact, I'm curious, just how certain were you?
RO. Don't know why people would be interested in our spat, but since you know all too well you were lying through your teeth and won't put up the link, I will.
HERE
You committed a lie by omission, something you do on such a regular basis, that one can only conclude you are intentionally misleading people, the same way a liar does.
In fact, here's the full quote and context of the words you tried to maraud. I'll highlight the tiny portion you pulled out of the broader intent to try and claim that Obama was assailing the tenets of effective government. In truth, he was intending to assure skeptics by using UPS and FedEx, as examples, that government will not impede the ability of insurance companies to prosper.
"Now, I recognize, though, you make a legitimate -- you raise a legitimate concern. People say, well, how can a private company compete against the government? And my answer is that if the private insurance companies are providing a good bargain, and if the public option has to be self-sustaining -- meaning taxpayers aren't subsidizing it, but it has to run on charging premiums and providing good services and a good network of doctors, just like any other private insurer would do -- then I think private insurers should be able to compete. They do it all the time. (Applause.)
I mean, if you think about -- if you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? No, they are. It's the Post Office that's always having problems. (Laughter.)
So right now you've got private insurers who are out there competing effectively, even though a lot of people get their care through Medicare or Medicaid or VA. So there's nothing inevitable about this somehow destroying the private marketplace, as long as -- and this is a legitimate point that you're raising -- that it's not set up where the government is basically being subsidized by the taxpayers, so that even if they're not providing a good deal, we keep on having to pony out more and more money. And I've already said that can't be the way the public option is set up. It has to be self-sustaining."
Our postal service is one of the best, and cheapest, in the world. One of the reasons that they were slower to adapt to both the good and the bad that the internet brought to them (as compared to FedEx and UPS) is that they don't have billions in cash just lying around that managers at private firms can simply invest in new infrastructure and new business models. If USPS wants to change, they'll need money from congress. And WHO controlled congress for the first fifteen years or so of the internet boom? CONSERVATIVES. Who (1) hate to spend money (or at least so they claim!) and (2) would rather see the postal service shut down than give it what it needs to adapt and thirve and serve the public.
The main problem with gov't entities are the competing agendas that hamper it's funding and operations. And these agendas can usualy be boiled down to liberals who want to solve problems and serve the public versus conservative who don't want the gov't to do ANYTHING. So they sabotage the funding, hamstring the budgets and then say, "See? we told you it wouldn't work!"
FedEx and UPS didn't get where they are today without billions in investment over many years. It didn;t happen just because they're private, or "more efficient."
-----------------------------------------------
So I'm still not buying it.
I said
"What a dishonest hack you are to take that comment by Obama out of context to claim that they do a better job than the Post Office does. They don't DO the same job as the USPS - not even close.
And Obama's point was that the USPS doesn't force them out of business. Not that they run as efficiently as the USPS. FAIL.
It's like comparing private schools who don't have to take everyone and who have much more parental involvement to public schools, and claiming that private schools are better at doing the same job as public schools!"
RightON never named a company that runs as efficiently as government. He claims that he did. He failed. Then he ran away, never to return to that thread.
And then he used the oft-debunked argument that we simply reject him because he has a different opinion than us. He said
"I know you hate conservatives and me, but your fear of a civil dialogue with anyone who doesn't share your philosophies is ridiculous."
It's not true. Just like it's not true that we hate FoxNews because of their slant, or that slant is why the White House objects to them getting more credibility than they should get considering how often they distort.
And besides, I support Obama. I don't worship him. Even were your quote and interpretation spot on, I am still free to disagree iwth him.
Expanding on her point, can you in fact name anything that the private sector can do both more effectively AND nore efficiently that the gov't, relative to anything the gov't is in fact doing?
You could argue that insurance coampanies are more efficient - I don't by it, but you can argue it - but they achieve this by DENYING coverage to those hwo need it most. So any surplus of efficiency you may percvieve is undercut by a loss of effectiveness at solving the problem.
Neither model is perfect for all things, and both can be adequate for certain things.
----------------------------------------------
But I don't see prvate comapnies doing anything the gov't does both more effectively AND more efficiently. It's always a trade-off, at best.
It has to be frustrating to not be allowed to simply get to spew nonsense and get away with it. We can't stop you from posting the nonsense, just like we can't (and won't) shut down FoxNews, but we can make sure that others know that you don't deserve the credibility you desire and you claim you deserve! That's what the White House is doing, and that's what MMFA is doing, and so we know that it bugs you to no end. Too bad, so sad.
And the "examples"? You gave one example, the package delivery businesses that you compared to the USPS, except they don't do the same thing at all, so it was a totally invalid example.
I'm not surprised that despite the fact that your example doesn't hold up under the slightest scrutiny, you still stand by it. You seem genetically incapable of admitting any error.
Are there things the government does well? Absolutely. Are there definite roles for government in our lives and does government have a responsibility to promote the general welfare? Absolutely. Is government the wonderful entity which runs with the well timed and the well oiled efficiency of a new car? Absolutely Not.
Obama has absolutely declared on many occassions that government is not the answer to our problems. He has explicitly stated how important business and a free market system is to our nation and economy. I don't know what you guys heard in 2007-08, but Obama never campaigned on the idea of Big Government solving our problems.
Also, one of the main reasons private industries are efficient is because of competition, that makes companies stronger.
Inefficiency is a result of reduced competition.
But of course RightON thinks it's a wondrous debate point.
It's not. His praise of it should have been your first clue.
And no one here is campaigning for big government either. That's a total strawman argument. And Obama has never said that government is not the answer to any questions. In fact, he's said the exact opposite on several occasions.
------------------------------------------------
Moron
But some people don't like you because you're gruesomely wrong habitually. That might be something you'd want to improve on.
Just like FoxNews, they aren't toxic to the national debate because they promote alternative, opposite political views, and neither are you.
It's the lies, the distortions, and the omission of relevant information that's the reason for people not liking you. It's your dishonest cropping of quotes by people like roundhouse and Brabantio and me. It's your refusal to admit when you've made an error. It's the way you disappear at the end of the day, or when you've derailed a thread to your satisfaction, never to return to that thread, but more than willing to bring up that same debunked argument the next day or the next week.
That's why you're habitually 'wrong'.
Anyway, thanks for the back-up DellDolly, you and Eddie both. I appreciate it.
I must say that I am impressed with the number of thumbs down. That is a sign of integrity.
In the big picture what kills more people, terrorists or cancer? What takes more American lives, Al-Qaeda's bullets or heart disease?
No one seems to complain much about the nearly one TRILLION in taxes and TRILLIONS overall we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Over the last eight years tens of thousands of people lost their lives in military (more than 5,100 U.S. troops) and civilian casualties, but we will argue like hell over spending under 900 billion over ten years to try to SAVE lives.
The President recently signed a $680 Billion defense appropriation bill. That is for one year. That is NON Iraq and Afghanistan war money. But people will raise hell over a few billion more over ten years to save lives and improve health?!? We spent over $2.8 TRILLION on health care LAST YEAR, but we don't want to fix the system to reduce those costs and save American lives? I just don't @#$% get it! Why is there not more outrage at this hypocrisy? War taxes ok. Health care reform, BAD. WTF?!?
That's how they could grow a pair. Make sniveling little Lieberman get up on the Senate floor and stand to account for his allegiance to the healthcare industry in his state. Harry Reid needs to "grow a set" because I can guarantee you that a Republican Senate Majority Leader would never be held hostage on an issue of this importance by his own party.
While I DO NOT believe that winning two governorships means anything about national healthcare, it's very telling that neither state had 25% of voters first concerned with healthcare....which bodes worse for "Obamacare" or any other major overhaul of the system than the governorships changing.
Both are wrong here.
Opinion aside, we suck in public health statistics, medical bills are the number one reason for filing for bankruptcy, and millions--who unfortunately tend to be the people who are too busy with survival to vote--don't have it.
It should be enacted because it's the right thing to do.
As for it being the right thing to do, that is an arguable statement depending on your point of view. For many, the right thing to do is not let the government in on running it, there is nothing wrong with that skepticism.
The fact that voters don't have that as their number one priority isn't going to determine whether it passes or fails, and that's the strawman argument that MMFA knocks down!
I said that the Fox guys were wrong, but not for the reasons MMfA stated. Fox guys are wrong = election results are a referendum on healthcare? How can you possibly understand english like that?
See the headline above?
FoxNews' declaration that election results mean "Obamacare" is dead is undermined by facts.
I paraphrased that to "The election results weren't a referendum on Obama's healthcare reform ideas. Not in any way, shape or form."
See how similar those two things are?
Now, what you said was "That wasn't MMfA's point, at all."
All I did was restate MMFA's point to you. You had claimed that the fact that only 25% said that Healthcare reform was an urgent concern made a difference. It doesn't. So I restated MMFA's point, since you seemed to have missed it.
Another slow person who has to have stuff explained to him 3 times?
But see, I understand what a troll is. A troll is a person who wants the attention directed towards themselves instead of towards the subject that's actually under discussion. Some trolls are just vain and that's why they want the attention. Others are just trying to irritate other people. Some are trying to divert attention to their troll posts to derail conversations in order to stop us from having a fair debate on the issues.
And we see where you and RightON fall. In that last box. In the same box that FoxNews falls - creators of strawmen arguments. I bet you're teed off that your WITH post didn't get more traction on that other thread - I mean, you got the first post placement and everything, but almost no one took your bait! In the same box Rush Limbaugh falls into - taking us off into nonexistent problems like death panels so we can't discuss the actual value of having Medicare pay for end-of-life counselling sessions to help patients make informed decisions!
So yeah, a progressive poster could be a troll, even on a progressive site like this. But I am not an example of one. My posts aren't examples of troll posts. And your post suggesting that I am is just another example of a personal attack troll post by you, looking to derail the conversation with a personal attack on me.
"A troll is a person who wants the attention directed towards themselves instead of towards the subject that's actually under discussion. Some trolls are just vain and that's why they want the attention."
I think that sums you up pretty well. Seems to me your long meandering posts take up quite a bit of attention and space on here. You call everyone else a troll while looking like one yourself.
Oh, and everyone take a shot everytime Dell uses the word "strawman" in a post. We will all be drunk within an hour. LOL
I don't always agree with everything you say, but I respect your opinion and at least you are mostly civil about it, unlike some people.
I just find it amusing when people instantly throw out names and labels if you don't have the exact same view as they do. So immature and narrow-minded.
I don't care what your political affiliation is, as long as you are reasonable and logical, I'm willing to listen. Unfortunately, most people think the louder they scream and wave their arms, the more correct their points are. Its laughable really. Teabaggers, tree huggers, pro-lifers, PETA, birthers, vegans...they are all pretty much the same creatures, just different extreme points of view that they think is the right one.
As Susan Powers used to say, "Stop the insanity!"
What a dunce you are that you think anyone will buy what you're selling. You have no credibility. I guess you maybe used to, but you have virtually none now.
Here are just a few examples I have seen in just a handfull of stories I have read here:
by DellDolly (October 18, 2009 12:24 am ET) Thanks for showing us your true colors in what is likely your first post here. Lurker trolls and concern trolls are much more offensive than just plain jane bigoted trolls.
by DellDolly (October 22, 2009 3:42 am ET) You should consider not posting here any more, because it's clear you're just going to make a fool of yourself every time.
by DellDolly (October 22, 2009 1:24 pm ET) You're one of the troll posters here who tries to derail threads to distract us.
by DellDolly (October 22, 2009 1:29 pm ET) Thanks for your concern trolling, but no thanks.
by DellDolly (October 22, 2009 4:41 pm ET) Trolls never want their derailing posts pointed out as troll posts. It stops them in their tracks. It defeats their purpose. People here sometimes do need to have troll posts pointed out to them at times. They get wrapped up in the argument without realizing what's really going on.
by DellDolly (October 22, 2009 4:46 pm ET) This is exactly the definition of concern trolling. That's why it's clear that you're a concern troll.
by DellDolly (October 29, 2009 10:32 am ET) And you're the one who complained about MMFA. If you don't like what they do, leave.
by DellDolly (October 29, 2009 2:27 am ET) Gosh, more of these concern troll comments? Did you post these on every thread? That's called spamming, you know.
by DellDolly (November 02, 2009 5:48 pm ET) What a troll you've turned out to be. Please don't feed the troll.
by DellDolly (November 02, 2009 11:55 pm ET) Troll post, totally off topic, no facts, only rightwing talking points, repeatedly rude, no facts, abusive, offensive, no facts related to the topic, repeated over and over again.
I think you have some major issues Dell. Time to get a new hobby you hypocritical troll. Or maybe you can go to Trolls Anonymous for some help? How sad you are.
But your personal attacks direct attention to yourself! That makes your post a troll post.
Staying on topic doesn't make someone look like a troll.
Stalking someone makes you look like a troll.
Media Matters headline - Fox News' declaration that election results mean "Obamacare" is dead is undermined by facts.
I didnt get that from what I saw.
This is what I saw on Fox.
I saw Bob Beckel say that it had no effect. I saw Pad Cadell say that it had 'heavy implications'.
I saw a panel discussion with voters in Virginia stating that thier vote was about 'jobs' and not Obama.
I saw Brit Hume say that American's like this President but growing concerned about some of his policy's.
I saw a reporter say that Gov. Corzine's promise to lower property taxes when he ran 4 years ago was hampered by a poor economy.
Stop crying foul where there isnt any.
I saw political TALKING HEADS giving OPINIONS, and it was a variation of opinions at that. I didnt see FoxNews DECLARING that Obamacare is dead.
Show me where you see FoxNews declaring that Obamacare is dead and I'll take it back.
Fox News: If GOP Wins Both Races, No Gov't-Run Option
Any other examples?
No matter how many examples are sited, there will come trolls saying
#1 - dealt with
#2 - Hannity 'listeners', that isnt Fox News
#3 - Carlson, dont see where she says its dead
#4 - Doocy, "do it incrimentaly" doesnt sound like 'dead'.
#5 - Morris, "Deathblow"...in a NEW YORK POST column. Even if he did say it on Fox News...that doesnt mean that Fox News made a 'declaration' that Obamacare is dead! It means that Dick Morris thinks its dead! (thought you had me there, huh?)
#6 - Pat Cadell, "Heavy implications", doesnt sound like 'dead' and even if it was it means that Pat Cadell thinks it is not the network. He is a 'contributor' and is paid for his OPINION.
#7 - Ed Morrissy, gee I didnt catch him on Fox, even though MM is going to pin his quotes onto Fox.
#8 & #9 - Exit polling, not attributed to FoxNews but MM still puts it under the headline about how FoxNews made a 'declaration'.
There are political pundits on Fox that said "this was not about Obama or healthcare". Does anyone understand the differences between opinion & news?
why did you vote to not let gay people express their love? don't they have the freedom to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
why would the people of Maine be so unpatriotic as to deny freedom to other Americans?
but thats the sign good sign that the facist right is only willing to support freedom for those they agree with.
Yeah, Maine is filled with right wing neocon fascist nazi's.
Keep spinning.
Yeah, Maine is filled with right wing neocon fascist nazi's.
Keep spinning.
Try that, and then get back to us after you've gotten a clue.
Reading more than a headline will refute your debunking of #2, #5, #6, #7, #8, and #9.
And yeah, we understand the difference between opinion and news. It's your side that doesn't understand that we understand the difference!!!!!
I also have seen commentators on Fox like Brit Hume, Bob Beckel, Juan Williams, and a few others along with a panel of Virginians all say that the elections on Tuesday were not about Obama and Obamacare. Those are OPINIONS of COMMENTATORS talking on Fox News too.
Your 'template' does not compute.
You're the one who differentiated those ones because they weren't committed by FoxNews.
Because you only read the headline, which specifically mentioned FoxNews.
Instead of reading the post below, which mentioned FoxNews and other rightwingers.
So I told you to go back and read more than just the headline.
This is not rocket science, you know. But clearly you have an issue with understanding context. So I'll try to explain that to you too.
There were two parts to your post. The first was your list. I addressed that above. The second was yor comment "There are political pundits on Fox that said "this was not about Obama or healthcare". Does anyone understand the differences between opinion & news?" And that's why the second part of MY post addresses THAT subject that you brought up. There were two separate issues.
And MMFA doesn't talk about conservatives that aren't spreading misinformation. Only about the one who are, so there's no reason for you to point out that some conservatives didn't try to mislead their viewers! No one said that they all do it every time any one of them opens their mouths!!! This is about the ones who misbehaved or distorted the known facts or omitted relevant data!!!
I swear, why do you people who don't know what you're talking about come onto sites like this and prove it? My template was fine. You should consider trading in the thing you use to 'compute' with! LOL
MM headline - "Fox News' declaration that election results mean "Obamacare" is dead is undermined by facts".
Now show me where that declaration made by FoxNews is?
And that's the thing I tried to explain to you slowly.
But now you're showing us that even a detailed explanation went right over your head.
That's something you should consider. I expect that the significance of it will go in one ear and out the other, because it appears there's nothing inbetween to keep any learning inside your head!
Two more votes for "Obamacare" (in CA and NY) is one heck of a "deathblow".
80% of NJ votes NOT casting votes as opposition to Obama's policies is one heck of a "deathblow".
Neither party has my undying loyalty, nor will they have.
I come here to be exposed to views from all sides of an issue, and to occasionally put my two cents in as well.
http://www.bluevirginia.us/2009/10/creighs-depressing-comment-on-public.html
Creigh Deeds: "I'm not afraid of going against my fellow Democrats when I think they're wrong...Public option isn't required in my view, I think we have to do two things with health care, we have to reduce costs so more people can afford insurance and we have to increase coverage. I share those broad goals. I don't think the public option is necessary in any plan and I think Virginia...I would certainly consider opting out if that were available to Virginia. We have to find ways to increase competition in order to reduce costs..."
The line "I don't think the public option is necessary" probably depressed Democratic turnout and was a factor in his defeat.
If one wants to draw a lesson for VA, it's that Democrats should appeal to their base by supporting the public option.
He always comes off as over-the-top serious and over-the-top sincere. Sometimes I wonder if he's actually Mike Myers in costume.
Hahahahahaaha anybody want some TEA?!!!! Tastes great less socialist.
I want to also thank all of you who back Obama and George Soros because I had an epiphany recently inthe Gulf of Siam where i realized as an American I needed to come back to my country and crush the wave of socialism and "world government" sickness that was starting to creep ito America. Go ahead and moc me but I and millions like me are having an impact and I have been GOING to TEAPARTIES with my wife and child and it was great. This election was AWESOME. I feel energized and we are just getting started. Oh and BTW it was wonderful to be able to get FOX News in Thailand.
Let me look forwad 12 months:
NO CAP & TAX
NO OBAMACARE
NO AMNESTY
NO MORE TAXES
IMPEACH OBAMA
But it's true, the Republican base is more energized now than the Democratic base. We're in need of some moral clarity on the healthcare reform struggle from the white house. Still, we will win the fight because we have a clear vision for a better future. The Republicans, as you demonstrate, stand for nothing except standing against the president. That is a weak position to take as it only exposes a crumbling foundation of big ideas coming from the right.
Enjoy your victory while you can. It will be short-lived.
I have no doubt that this country would be in the toilet had the Republicans won the last election. We simply cannot sustain a prosperous society based on the conservative way of low wages for all, sweet heart tax deals for the rich, corporate dominance and monumental wealth inequality. No country in the history of the world has been able to flourish in broad prosperity under that Ayn Randian conservative economic philosophy.
Chyron states: "Dems pushing health care reform despite losses in NJ, VA"
I am not kidding
Chryon: "Pelosi still pushing health care reform despite losing NJ, VA"
Huh? "Democrats often have never lost"? That doesn't even make any sense. When you consider the fact that the western (and much more rural) parts of Virginia are traditionally REPUBLICAN voting districts, it makes even less sense. On the east coast of VA, in Northern VA, and VA's capital city (which is predominantly black and overwhelmingly democratic) is where you'll find the "blue" voters - the voters who turned Virginia BLUE in the presidential election for the first time in nearly half a century, and the voters who KEEP Virginia mostly blue in gubernatorial elections since, oh, the early 1800's or so. McDonnell is only the SIXTH republican governor of Virginia since the late 1870's. That being said, voter turnout in VA was horrid this election day. I don't think many people were excited by either candidate, but the conservatives turned up in droves (or what passes for droves when talking about conservatives) to vote against Deeds and the disenchanted democrats either had to work, or didn't see the point in voting for a candidate (Deeds) who never missed an opportunity to punch them in the heads in his attempt to coerce independents and moderate republicans to vote for him over McDonnell. At any rate, VA made the wrong decision and we will certainly pay for it for the next four years, if not longer. If you thought we were in bad financial shape NOW, just wait until conservatits McDonnell gets a hold of the black marker and starts slashing tax rates for the wealthy, our transportation budget, our education budget, etc. The only jobs he'll create are positions passing out government cheese to all the newly impoverished Virginians.
Mark my words: the GOP will take this as a clarion to move further to the right. Look for big GOP losses in 2010.
Randy
Now, I've got nothing against old folks - I'm almost 60 myself.
But that's an amazing number. HALF their audience is 64 and up? This is not exactly the active demographic in our country. People with plenty of time on their hands (unless they are spending their golden years working under the golden arches).
Still - as the junior senator from Minnesota would say, "Wow!"
Check out tvbythenumbers.com
Sorry..... I love it when you guys try to discredit Fox News... it only makes their numbers go UP!
Just like the vile Rahm Dead-Fish Emmanuel's (the failed ballet dancer) plan to vilify Fox has completely backfired... as a matter of fact, MORE DEMOCRATS watch Fox than CNN or MSNBC... Check out O'Reilly from yesterday where he presented all the data
Of course, the risks/benefits of the bill aren't the topic of conversation here. The topic is that allegations that this election was a referendum on Healthcare Reformm and that the results of the election indicate that reform is dead isn't accurate.
Glad to remind you, troll.