Fox News Cares About Process, Even if Most Voters Don’t

Fair and balanced.

Did fox try to do a real news story!?!?! WTF?!?!

“But I give Fox News credit for not letting Obama turn the interview into an infomercial for Democratic health care reform.”

Oh give me a break. He was assigned a suite of RW talking points to harass the President with, to make the Fox “News” crowd happy, rather than have a substantive discussion on health care reform. I’ll bet you any amount of money that Rachel Maddow would have a substantively much tougher interview with Obama on this topic, without being rude or disrespectful toward the President.

In fact, she had exactly that kind of an interview with Tim Geithner last night. Deeply informed and substantive, adversarial at times without being a prick.

The Fox thing tonight was just ankle biting.

Didn’t see the interview on Fox News. Did it follow the boilerplate pattern of those self-described “interviews” conducted by ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, MSDNC, ESPN, ESPN2, ESPN Classic, ESPN News, the Food Network, NPR, the New York Times-Democrat, the Washington Post-Democrat, the execrable Associated (with terrorists) Press, Sports Illustrated, et al., to wit: “How do you and your family deal with all of the vicious, untrue, slanderous attacks continuously launched by those evil Republicans?” “How do you protect your children from all of the vicious, untrue, slanderous attacks continuously launched by those evil Republicans?” “How do you explain why you are so loved by Americans and the world?” ….

Time magazine:

If you get a chance, please post photos of every television personality from ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, MSDNC, Oprah, Entertainment Tonight, the Insider, et al., who has conducted a television “interview” (i.e., orgasmic love fest) with Obama. I’ll send you a quarter if there is a single one that does not feature a teary-eyed, swooning leftist with a huge, massive, adoring, loving grin on his/her face. I’ll send you another quarter if there is a single one of those personalities not on his/her knees.

In the first place Ms Pickert, you are not old enough, nor are you wise enough yet to understand what it takes to interview a President.
.
I watched the entire interview that Brett did with the President. It was not at all disrespectful, if anything the President bloviated and didn’t answer the direct questions asked. He remained as usual on his talking points about the health care reform bill being considered.
.
Brett attempted to get him to commit to his previous words that #1 he, Obama said that passing such a landmark bill with reconciliation would undermine his ability to be President. To be able to effectively implement this reform, if passed.
.
#2, with regards to the process, it is important. It is a question that we want answered. Are the House of Representatives going to put their name on a bill as voting yes which they will defend in the upcoming election? Or, will they “deem” it passed, and go back to their district and say “I didn’t vote for it”?
.
You see Ms Pickert, you could learn mountains from this interview about how to not only interview a President, but know the difference between asking pointed questions versus showing respect for the Office of the President.
.
I do hope you can post the entire interview rather than a “transcript” which does not show exactly how Obama evaded most all of the questions Brett Baier asked of him.

Why would reconciliation make it harder to be President? It didn’t do so the last 20 times it was used.
.
And have you interviewed a President, Rustyblog? Post THAT video online when you get the chance. I’m sure it’s exceedingly insightful.

Okay I didn’t watch the interview. But I am aware of it and I know the slams against Baier. I don’t particularly agree with them. But for a blog whose reporters spend 99 percent of their time on process and NOT what is actually in the bill. I find this particular post a little rich.

I’m not sure how Kate Pickert knows that most voters don’t care about process. Just repeating that shibboleth over and over doesn’t make it so. For myself, I believe that voters do care about process if a serious issue is made of it, if the dispute at hand is a matter to which the public pays great attention, and if the process itself does appear genuinely unfair. In that regard, I get the impression that Pickert hopes that if she and others say, loudly enough and often enough, that voters don’t care about process, it will become an unchallenged axiom which helps speed the passage of ObamaCare. In fact, process, in the law, can matter so much that its deprivation rises to the level of a constitutional violation – that is, a civil rights procedural due process claim. That’s why people like Pickert, in their result-driven lust to see a certain end achieved, should be a little more careful in what words they choose. No, process shouldn’t always be elevated over substance, and it’s certainly fair to point out that the GOP seems to have only very recently decided that deem and pass is unfair. Yet don’t be too disdainful of process. Process – that is, fairness in procedure – has for many years protected a broad swath of rights throughout our society.

Just for you megy
.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/03/video-then-senator-obama-dumps-on-a-50-plus-one-approach-to-governance/
.
Of course that is when you want to “transform” the country, whatever that means. I believe it means turn it into a neo-Socialist country.

I love how Fox News and the republicans practically have a seizure trying to get the president to rattle and he just stays cool every time and exposes them as lacking any sort of class or even decent manners. He is not afraid of the GOP and Fox’s sorry scare tactics. He continues to walk into the enemy lair alone with only his convictions and inner strength to hold him down. Each time he has emerged as the calm and composed one.

newfreedom,
I also watched the entire interview and I agree with your comments.
It was a totally fair interview and Beier performed as any good reporter should do when interviewing the President. He was in no way disrespectful. The short video Kate chose to show may give that impression which is probably what she intended

His performance is so good that his approval rating is now under 50%.
Keep worshiping the President.
You only have 2 years and 10 and 1/2 months to go.

I believe it means turn it into a neo-Socialist country.

And I believe it means to change the way government works by relying on the ‘loyal opposition’ to act like grown ups and govern in the interests of their constituency.
.
Who’s right? Well, for starters, Obama has not done anything remotely similar to transforming us into a socialist country, no matter how many times that canard’s been raised. Not looking good for your beliefs, rustyblog.

Good lord, Kate, your bias is showing. First of all, I pay pretty close attention to coverage issues, and I cannot recall a single instance of one MSM reporter criticizing the substance of an MSM newsanchor’s interview questions. Guess what, when election time comes most people don’t care about most things. But if that’s the standard for interviewing, well, we’d have some pretty boring interviews.

Second, while you’re right that no one is going to care exactly how this bill was passed, people are going to care that it was a partisan cramdown of an unpopular bill. Moreover, Kate, perhaps while you were getting all excited about Barack Obama and his “Hope and Change” mantra, he was out there making, you know, real promises and taking real positions about how government should work. And now, with his political life on the line, he professes he doesn’t care how a HCR bill (which, as he himself acknowledged, violates two core pledges about HCR, namely that if you like your insurance you can keep it and that government won’t come between you and your doctor–funny how that little tidbit escaped you) which fundamentally changes the role of government in healthcare (i.e., our lives) is passed? And an interviewer, given all of Obama’s quotes, is supposed to ignore that issue because Kate Pickert thinks that people won’t care. Yeah, they won’t care about “deem and pass”, but they will care about an unpopular bill crammed down people’s throats in a shady manner. Especially since Obama could put a stop to the shady manner.
.
And this quote simply cannot pass without derision:
.
“I also think it’s silly to spend the vast majority of an interview segment on health care asking questions about a procedure Republicans used when they were in power.”
.
Well, gee, the Republicans did it, so it’s not newsworthy? By that standard, we shouldn’t care about corruption because both parties have corrupt members. As I mentioned above, Obama himself made a huge deal about how Washington was too partisan etc., and he promised that the old ways of doing business were over. Well, guess what, they ain’t. Moreover, since when do the actions of the GOP bind the people about what constitutes a shady practice.
.
And no criticism of Obama? He was testy and evasive. And his mention of Hawai’i earthquakes was up there with his invocation of the Austrian language.

I seem to remember Reagan having a remarkably similar approval path over his first 13 months in office.

I watch MSM and FOX I will let you in on a little secret it is to bad for the PROGRESSIVES that not only do over 85% of the people WANT to know about the PROCESS they are demanding to know.. Unlike 18-29 year old children people have been wondering just how it is that our government has passed bills that actually did HARM to this country..I my friends, family and kids have been watching with great interest just the bull that has been going on in Washington thanks to C-Span, 1,2,and 3.. we have watched CNN until they decided to get in Bed with Obama and FOX.. can’t say that MSM is much good for anything but local news.. we have read books and asked questions.. and guess what we DON’T LIKE WHAT WE ARE SEEING.. I am NOT saying this bull hasn’t been going on I am however pointing out that the PEOPLE don’t like what they are seeing, hearing and experiencing.. AND contrary to what the LEFT would like to beleive THE PEOPLE WILL REMEMBER.. I am writing a history book so my grandkids will KNOW how our Politicians sold out the people..Do you know how many people were fed this same bull as we are hearing about HC about SS? At first it was voluntary, than mandatory, than for the disabled, and expanded from there along with the TAXES that were taken out for it which are now the biggest IOU the government owes the people however the government SPENT THE MONEY.. do you think HC will be any different.. YES more than FOX cares how and what procedures are being used.. the people and future generations care and will know every corrupt, sneaky, and deal made including maybe selling water in CA to get a few needed votes.. beware next time it might be YOUR FOOD for votes..

Has anyone established a formula concluding that there is an inverse relationship between the number of unnecessary caps in a post, and the sanity of said poster?

Put a sock in it, ohiolib. IIRC, you were one of the twits who actually defended Sotomayor’s stupid statement that Ginsburg’s dissent would have affirmed the 2d Circuit in Ricci. When you talk nonsense like that, nothing you say can be taken seriously.

“Bret, the core of this bill is going to be affecting every American family. If you have insurance, you’re going to be able to keep it.”
.
Is he kidding? No one believes that anymore.

Please. You seem to forget it was the 30 and younger generation who voted in record numbers for Obama. They may lose interest during the interim but you can believe they will be back to vote again for Obama. That and the fact that republicans have lost nearly 100% of the hispanic vote with their xenophobic rants agains immigrants. Without any hispanic support and the youth who claim Obama as their own they now have a very slim margin for error. Without the strong hispanic vote Bush never gets elected in the first place, now you can kiss that segment goodbye also. Who is going to best the president? Palin? Perry? Good luck winning the presidency with a tea bagging birther.

No one believes Fox is “fair and balanced” either. The fact that they use that slogan shows that they are liars. If you are going to lie right off the top with your main slogan then you have no credibility with anything you say because you are a fraud. I have no problem with how Fox operates, it is a free country. But to claim “fair and balanced” is nothing more than lying. When have they ever shown the other perspective?

The Daily Show is on top of it right now. John Oliver sums up the GOP perspective quite clearly: “I would rather die homeless of a curable disease than to live in the world of Obamacare!”

Is that supposed to be a response? There is a bit of a difference between a news organization engaging in a bit of puffery and POTUS telling a whopper. I hope in your real life you’re a bit more of a grownup.

spob:
.
What specific language in the Senate bill proves that the claim “If you have insurance, you’re going to be able to keep it.” is false?
.
Do you mean the “Cadillac plan” tax that is (allegedly) meant to discourage high health care consumption policies, or is there anything else contained in the bill that will force people off of their current plans –significantly faster or in more numbers than would be the case if the bill did not pass?
.
Or do you simply mean that nothing in the Senate bill guarantees that employers will continue to provide identical coverage, or guarantees that insurers will continue to provide identical plans after it passes?
.
Just to be clear, I could care less whether or not Obama “admitted” something or not. Many people say that Obama is an inveterate liar, so his admissions might not be that key to understanding the facts. So, what Obama said or didn’t say aside, how do you know with empirical certainty that the claim “If you have insurance, you’re going to be able to keep it.” is false?

Actually, I believe what i said was that ginsburg’s dissent would have generally concurred with the 2nd court ruling, in that they had comparable outcomes. It’s called a concurring opinion. (Same outcome for different reasons)

And I guess a majority of the people think the same way too.
.
This bill stinks. Blow it up and start over. Obama has until 2012 to turn it around.

ohiolib, you are clowning yourself now. Ginsburg’s opinion was a dissent–it was not a concurring opinion. And no, it didn’t concur with the 2d Circuit’s affirming of summary judgment for the defendants in the case.
.
All you have to do is ask yourself–did the plaintiffs raise con law claims and did Ginsburg’s dissent resolve said claims. Then you’ll see how Sotomayor botched her analysis of Ginsburg’s Ricci dissent. This is pretty basic stuff.

sz, I find a lot of your posts tedious. You have the annoying earnestness of officious people we have to deal with in our daily lives. Sorry, just being honest.
This is why I rarely respond to your comments. You use a lot of words, but you don’t say a whole lot.
.
In any event, given the radical changes to the healthcare delivery/payment system that will be worked by Obamacare, his guarantee that those Americans who “have theirs” (to paraphrase some commenters here) aren’t going to have changed to their healthcare insurance caused by HCR is about as believable as the claims of those who peddled enzyte. He has no basis to make such a claim, and yet he does, and you’re asking me to prove he’s wrong? Gotcha. Moreover, what does it say about him–that he’s willing to make these outlandish claims?
.
So ya see, SZ, the issue is not whether the Senate Bill empirically proves Obama’s claim is false. (That Obama has conceded as much is good enough for me in any event.) I didn’t say that. I said that no one believes it. Big difference. But more to the point, why should we trust anything this guy has to say about Obamacare when, at this late date, he is making claims that he cannot have any certainty about. I can claim that on July 25, 2010 it is going to rain 4 inches in NYC. You cannot prove that to be false–but you do realize that I have no business making that claim.

Speaking of “deemed pass”, this is an interesting tidbit:
.
http://www.crimeandconsequences.com/crimblog/2010/03/enrolled-bills-and-false-state.html

spob:
.
So all of that tedious, insulting three paragraphs to say that you have no idea whether that claim is really true or false, and you don’t care either way.
.
Super, thanks.
.
Perhaps that sort of obvious disregard for facts and policy substance is the reason why many people don’t respond to your commentary, except to call you an assh*le –sorry, just being honest, too.
.
Anyway thanks for clarifying how you feel about my questions and what you actually know about the claims you’re going on about.

ummm…spob. Do you know what a concurring opinion is? It’s when two (or more) justices reach the same conclusion but for different reasons. While it’s normally used to refer to opinions that lack a clear majority but have a plurality vote within in the court, I chose to use that term to refer to an opinion by another court. Not completely PC, but I felt it was the most accurate term. And you know what? Concurring opinions do not always address specific arguments made by other justices. There’s not always a real need to. A concurring opinion does not need to-and usually doesn’t-agree with the reasoning of other justices. That’s why it’s called a concurring opinion.

sz, are you that dense? The obvious point is that Obama doesn’t know, and he’s the one making the claim. He cannot know. And yet he’s making the claim. That’s fundamentally dishonest.
.
First of all, it’s not just the Senate bill we’re talking about. There’s a thing called the Code of Federal Regulations. The Sec’y of HHS is given massive authority under this bill to further regulate health care and insurance. It is simply inconceivable that all this regulation, on top of a bill that affects everyone, is not going to affect people’s insurance. It’s inconceivable, and on top of that, health insurance is going to change whether or not Obamacare is passed. Thus, the “you can keep it” is simply not worthy of belief. I mean really sz, do you believe that something like the individual mandate is not going to affect what kinds of policies are offered to consumers? How can it not? And more to the point, can anyone, with any degree of certainty say that it won’t (as Obama has)? There, is that enough “facts and policy” for you?
.
When you think about things along those lines, you see how silly your “point to the bill” challenge is. It’s up there with your nitwit commentary a few threads ago about negotiating coverage while on the way to the emergency room. Yeah, that would be a devastating critique of my point–if emergency care were the sole means by which healthcare was delivered in America. But it’s not.
.
You act as if you’re the adult in here. As if you are trying to uplift us all to some higher plane where debate will be high-minded. Well, guess what, sz, when you try to transmogrify my point that Obama’s claim is not worthy of belief because he cannot possibly know whether it’s true or false into some goofy exercise where I need to empirically prove it to be false, you coarsen the discussion in here. I didn’t say Obama was lying; I didn’t say he was telling a falsehood. I said that no one believes it anymore. And if you believe that there is any possibility that massive new regulations and things like the individual mandate aren’t going to have any effect on what people who have insurance will be able to buy in the future, well, you’re either being disingenuous or stupid. I care little about which.
.
And to be even more blunt—do you think I care one iota about what people say about me in here? I don’t. If you think I am an ass–knock yourself out. But at least be intellectually honest SZ–I didn’t say that Obama’s statement was provably false. I said it was akin to me making a claim that it was going to rain 4 inches in NYC on a date certain. There’s no way I have the knowledge to make that sort of claim, and there’s no way that Obama can make his. That’s not a difficult point to understand. Somehow it escapes you.

Wow ohiolib–doubling down. I didn’t think I’d have to explain in this much detail, but I guess I do. Let’s review what happened in Ricci.
.
Ricci plaintiffs raised statutory and constitutional claims with respect to New Haven’s refusal to promote them. The federal district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims (i.e., both statutory and constitutional claims). The Second Circuit affirmed the district court.
.
Then when the case went to SCOTUS, and SCOTUS reversed the second circuit in a 5-4 decision. The majority found it unnecessary to reach the constitutional claims of the Ricci plaintiffs, holding for them instead on statutory grounds. The dissent, authored by Ginsburg, rejected the majority’s statutory analysis, and also did not discuss the constitutional claims of the plaintiffs.
.
It’s the last point that makes Sotomayor’s claim that Ginsburg’s dissent would have affirmed the Second Circuit so amateurish. Remember, the Second Circuit affirmed SJ for the defendants–and a sine qua non to an affirmance of SJ is that all of the plaintiff’s claims (both constitutional and statutory) would have had to be resolved. And since Ginsburg’s opinion didn’t even deal with the constitutional claims, there can be no claim that it would have affirmed the Second Circuit.
.
Get it?

Really? I’ve seen the full video; in fact, I have it posted on my website. I thought that little jerk (with all due respect) Baier was beyond rude to the President of the United States. Just indecent. Finally, the President said he’d answer Baier’s question if he’d quit interrupting him.

Baier was sitting there with a clipboard full of Fox News talking points — this wasn’t about process; it was about repeating Fox code words as often as possible. It was disgusting. I keep thinking I’ve seen the low point of journalism & then Fox outFoxes itself. So far THIS is it.

The Constant Weader at http://www.RealityChex.com

Actually, I never claimed that Ginsburg affirmed the second circuit. I said they were concurring opinions, in the sense that they arrived at the same place. The fact that they used different reasoning and had disagreements is what makes a concurring opinion.

Get it?

Unlike Fox News, ABC so-called “News” kept with the standard script when “interviewing” their dear leader Obama, to wit: ABC so-called “News” had Obama fill-out a freakin’ NCAA basketball tournament bracket on its so-called, self-described evening “news” program!!! Note that Obama doesn’t know how to spell. Note also that Obama’s spelling will be completely ignored by the entire Washington press corps. It must be nice to be a Democrat …. http://media.eyeblast.org/newsbusters/static/2010/03/Obama-Sycacuse-ABC-2010-03-17-360×280.jpg

Ohiolib, it’s simply nonsensical to talk about opinions on two different courts as “concurring”–no one talks about it this way. And Ginsburg’s opinion most certainly did not arrive at the same place as Sotomayor’s panel decision. All Ginsburg’s opinion said was that the majority’s analysis on the statutory claims were wrong, not that she would have affirmed a summary judgment to the defendants.
.
Furthermore, genius, the issue is not what you said, but your defense of Sotomayor’s amateurish attempt to glom onto Ginsburg’s dissent.
.
If you’re a lawyer, sue your law school, you didn’t get your money’s worth.

spob:
.
In between a lot of pointless, case-damaging invective, you wrote:
.
health insurance is going to change whether or not Obamacare is passed.
.
Yes.
.
So why didn’t you just agree with me when I said
.
“nothing in the Senate bill guarantees that employers will continue to provide identical coverage, or guarantees that insurers will continue to provide identical plans after it passes”
.
, instead of going on and on about 4 inches of rain in New York, and transmogrification, and whatever other silly character assassination attempts you could throw in there?
.
The real point is that you’re going way beyond a simple recitation of facts, spob. It’s like you’re promoting fear, uncertainty and doubt in the service of an amoral partisan agenda.
.
Obama said “If you have insurance, you’re going to be able to keep it.”
.
This:
.
“It is simply inconceivable that all this regulation, on top of a bill that affects everyone, is not going to affect people’s insurance.
.
is not the same as saying that people can’t keep the insurance they have, if Obama/Dole-care passes.
.
This:
.
do you believe that something like the individual mandate is not going to affect what kinds of policies are offered to consumers?
.
is also not the same as saying that people can’t keep the insurance they have, if Obama/Dole-care passes.
.
As you correctly mention, people are going to lose their private coverage anyway. The right thing to say would be that Obama/Dole-care doesn’t prevent that from happening, not that it directly causes loss of coverage.
.
It’s not “coarsening the discussion” to ask you if you knew of some part of the Senate bill that forces people off of their current employer-based coverage, it’s reasonable, given ubiquitous GOP claims of “government takeover of health care” and “you will lose your private health insurance.”, and your broadside accusations about Obama’s honesty.
.
If you conflate “lose your insurance” with “will affect insurance,” you’re being just as misleading as Obama. When you talk about believability, take a look in the mirror first.
.
Just be clear, spob. And honest.
.
Otherwise you’re no help to the debate at all.

“Bret, the core of this bill is going to be affecting every American family. If you have insurance, you’re going to be able to keep it.”
.
Is he kidding? No one believes that anymore.
spob
March 17, 2010
at 10:56 pm

..

I have insurance, and I believe that I am going to keep it. I don’t think I am the only one who thinks that. Am I missing something?

spob says:
sz, I find a lot of your posts tedious. …You use a lot of words, but you don’t say a whole lot.
.
This, in a thread in which spob has posted 26 paragraphs (11 of them about Sotomayor).
.
I love it.

I don’t mind that sort of criticism, except when it’s leveled to obscure a discussion of facts.

sz, to be honest, spob does not remind of that other hole.
.
Cant put my finger to it, but “spob” reminds me of a single celled organism that changes shape every time it is poked.

Rustyblog, fast.. where can I buy them survival seeds???
.
I dont think I will be able to buy them when Obama turns this country into neo-Socialist / neo-Nazist country. And we only have 3-4 days to go before that happens !!

Good grief, this is tedious, but here goes.
.
1) So why didn’t you just agree with me when I said
.
“nothing in the Senate bill guarantees that employers will continue to provide identical coverage, or guarantees that insurers will continue to provide identical plans after it passes”
.
I do agree with that point. So what? It just doesn’t go as far as the point I am making, and what does it have to do with your goofy challenge? Obama is trying to tell people who have health insurance that Obamacare isn’t going to affect them (and that’s the plain import of what he’s saying–why do you think he’s saying it–he wants to reassure those who have theirs that his policies aren’t going to screw them). And that’s BS because Obama cannot possibly know that. My original point, SZ, isn’t about the policy, but about the messenger and his message. At the risk of pointing out the obvious, I am a commenter on a f’in blog, he’s POTUS. Telling me I am fear-mongering in support of a partisan agenda kinda is besides the point when POTUS is offering assurances he cannot possibly believe in. That’s all I was saying, and I don’t see how that is at all out of bounds.
.
2) This is painful:

Obama said “If you have insurance, you’re going to be able to keep it.”
.
This:
.
“It is simply inconceivable that all this regulation, on top of a bill that affects everyone, is not going to affect people’s insurance.
.
is not the same as saying that people can’t keep the insurance they have, if Obama/Dole-care passes.
.
This:
.
do you believe that something like the individual mandate is not going to affect what kinds of policies are offered to consumers?
.
is also not the same as saying that people can’t keep the insurance they have, if Obama/Dole-care passes.”
.
SZ, you act as if Obama’s little statement is in a vacuum, but it’s not. First of all, the statement is very close to “If you like your insurance, you can keep it”, the clear implication of which is that you get to keep the kind you have, so is he trying to promise less than meets the eye? If so, that’s disingenuous. Additionally, “it” can refer to “your insurance” or just “insurance”. I’d say that “your insurance” is, by far, the more natural reading. Second, and even more damning, remember, as of the first meeting with the GOP, the ability to keep what you have was a core pledge of Obamacare, and now it’s some watered-down, oh, you’ll still get to have insurance? Finally, SZ, it’s not as if losing the ability to have health insurance as a result of this is what a lot of people are worried about (of course, there may be incentives for employers to drop coverage and let the government subsidize the workers, but that’s not a huge number)–so why is Obama modifying something which was a core pledge last month? It’s either a slickly packaged retrade or outright deception–which is it?
.
I think the problem here, sz, is that you miss the forest for the sapling growing underfoot. Obama made pledges about healthcare reform. And now, with his latest quote, he’s either (a) watering them down deliberately but packaging them so that the casual observer will think that the pledge has not changed or (b) restating the pledge in slightly less categorical terms thereby providing himself wiggle room.
.
I guess the difference between you and me, sz, is that i see the statement as dishonest no matter how you slice it. You think that rhetorical gamesmanship by POTUS can save him. Really, sz, what do you think he’s trying to do, assuage all the people who think that Obamacare is going to end private insurance?

The GOP comments about government takeover etc. have no bearing on what Obama’s said to sell Obamacare.
.
Continue your pedantic focus, sz, you are missing the boat. He’s not being honest, and he’s certainly not living up to what was a core pledge. And you want to play silly word games and engage in silly flyspecking.

You’ve acknowledged yourself that you tend to be wordy, and you’re willing to laugh about it. No big deal.
.
But for someone to say your posts are too long, after they’ve written several thousand words of their own, that’s completely ridiculous.
.
And a good half of those words are on a completely unrelated topic. spob pulled the Sotomayor issue out of thin air to distract ohiolib (and unfortunately it worked).

Fact #1, sz, as recently as the ballyhooed first meeting with the GOP, Barack Obama stated that the ability to keep what insurance one has was a core pledge with respect to Obamacare.
.
Fact #2, the Obama quote above is very close but not quite the same as that pledge.
.
Is it really that hard to understand that he’s either backtracking from the pledge (and SZ, you seem to have zero issues with that, given your statements above) or slickly packaging a very watered down claim?
.
Fact #3, HCR is almost certainly going to affect what policies people can get–and Obama has argued otherwise when he has no basis for doing so. That’s dishonest.

and cliff, I made ohiolib look like a fool. His discussion of concurring opinions is a joke.

spob, what I’m trying to say is that you are a bad arguer. And what I mean by that is your arguments are bad
.
I’m going to repeat myself, because you obviously didn’t catch the point the first time around: you can’t accuse SZ of being tedious and using a lot of words after you posted at least a dozen paragraphs.
.
And the reason the argument against ohiolib is bad is because you pulled this Sotomayor nonsense from out of thin air: literally no one else was talking about her, and she is in no way related to the topic of the thread.
.
ohiolib fell for it, which is not to his credit.
.
Still doesn’t make it a valid argument.

gimme a break, cliff, ohiolib made some comment about CAPS and so I busted his chops–get a life.
.
SZ is tedious because he wants to play word games. Bottom line–Obama pledged that we could keep the insurance we have, and there is very very little likelihood of that. He never should have said it, but he did. And that SZ chooses to attack the messenger seems a bit off.

Allow me to retort….
.
When Palin was interviewed with the “gotcha” media, they simply asked her a question and waited for her to answer. “Name a magazine or newspaper you read” etc., etc. When she couldn’t put together a coherent thought, it was the liberal media out to get her because they allowed her time to try and respond to questions.
.
When FOX repeatedly cuts off the PRESIDENT (whether you voted for him or not, he holds the highest office of our country), it is just good journalism?
.
Why is it so hard for the people on the right to see this double standard?

spob, whether you like it or not, the onus is on you to prove that Obama is lying about his core pledge.
Otherwise, it would be “Guilty until proven innocent” !!
.
Despite Obama’s best efforts (as per Beck and co) at destroying the country, I would like to inform your twisted mind that we still havent reached the stage where the law of the the land dictates that you are guilty until proven innocent!
.
Also, with that core pledge, the dubious “dont regulate because its one-sixth of the the economy” claim is also suspect.
.
I don’t know what’s the share of the Banking industry in the economy, but should that stop us from regulating the banks and preventing them from bankrupting not just the US economy, but the entire global economy? I don’t want to see the day when Health insurance companies become too big to fail.
.
BAIER: This is one-sixth of the U.S. economy, though, sir. One-sixth.
.
OBAMA: And, Bret, let me tell you something, the fact of the matter is that for the vast majority of people, their health care is not going to change because right now they’re getting a better deal. The only thing that is going to change for them is is that they’re going to have more security under their insurance and they’re going to have a better situation when it comes to if they lose their job, heaven forbid, or somebody gets sick with a preexisting condition, they’ll have more security. ”
.

Do some research at what it took to pass Medicare Part D; an unfunded gift to the elderly (and eager voters). I’m for the concept, but the same outraged Republicans who hold up Congress for a $15 Billion bill extending benefits to the unemployed voted for an unfunded bill. Those who were borderline were threatened by their party and forced to pass the bill. Did this thugish behavior cost the Republicans at the polls in the next election?

Spob, you’ve been arguing this whole “he violated two core promises of his reform” thing for months. When will you just give it up. I agree that the bill is not 100% aligned with his campaign promises. Guess what….that’s called compromise and legislating. The two “promises” he did not deliver on are incredbily iffy at best by any credible experts analysis. You’re trying to call him out for doing 56mph in a 55mph zone and it is tiring.
.
I hope your sig other puts three months of ranting posts out the next time you forget to take the garbage out when you promise you’ll do it.

If you’re a lawyer, sue your law school, you didn’t get your money’s worth.
.
Speak for yourself, spob. ohiolib’s terminology may have been legalistically imprecise, but his analysis is correct while yours remains embarrassing.
.
Do you really not understand what a dissent is? I’ll make it short and sweet for you: 2d. Circuit: Plaintiff’s lose. Ginsburg: Plaintiff’s lose.

“18-29 year old children”??
.
Let me take a wild guess that you’re also for “the troops” and a fanatical “patriot”
.
Does it occur to you that your troops are the same 18-29 year old “children” you mock so easily?

“And you want to play silly word games and engage in silly flyspecking.”
.
Ummm…..isn’t your entire argument about his telling the truth trying to slice “what the definition of “is” is” and other ridiculous word games?
.
As someone who works in the insurance industry, I can tell you, we’re not all sitting behind the curtain, wringing our hands and waiting for the bill to pass so we can suddenly kill employer provided health care.

Please define “keep the insurance you have” so the rest of us can calibrate to your definition. If you mean, the same level of coverage at the same price, you’re right, he lied. It will likely increase at a rate slower than it would otherwise without reform. Good catch.

….and will your history book have a lot of Caps in it?

“Did this thugish behavior cost the Republicans at the polls in the next election?”

.
Yes. Gee, kevpvp, there must be a disconnect with your liberal brain cells, that was too easy to answer.
.
But, I am glad you brought it up. Yes Republicans spent like drunken sailors. I am as mad at them for doing it as you most certainly are. They have paid a price, they lost not only the White House as a result, but also both Houses in Congress.
.
Now, will you hold your Democrats to the same accountability standards?

“As Jay and I have pointed out, by the time Election Day rolls around, most voters probably won’t care much what procedures or sweetheart deals Democrats employed in their efforts to pass health care reform.”

.
I must take issue with this summation as well, Ms Pickert. This is a very condesending remark from even you, a junior journalist. A fresh out of the blocks writer who has barely paid the first dollar back on your degree.
.
I am surprised that your “editor” is allowing you to bloviate on anything let alone make such remarks.
.
Is this the new direction that companies like TIME are training their new staff? That you look at or read another journalists interviews, critique them, and if they are not liberal, chastise them to make them look bad?
.
Is this, “How to make the competing news organizations look bad 101″? If so, and if I may grade it, you failed. You failed simply because you assume your readers are ill-informed, apathetic, and uninvolved.
.
The awakening that I believe is about to happen in November will not only catch the corrupt politicians in Washington off guard, but our lame stream media as well. This posting by you proves my point.
.
One thing I learned a long long time ago. When you ASSume something, the same word says ASS-U-ME. Meaning, assuming makes an a$$ out of you and me.

Finally, someone in the drive by media had the chance to ask the President some tough questions and reveal him as a typical politician who dodges questions and doesn’t like being pinned down to anything specific. If only the Press had done this two years ago, we wouldn’t have elected this unprepared and inexperienced junior Senator to the highest office in America. http://patrioticmobster.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/in-the-beginning-was-the-word-and-the-word-was-with-obama-and-the-word-was-healthcare/

“Do you really not understand what a dissent is? I’ll make it short and sweet for you: 2d. Circuit: Plaintiff’s [sic] lose. Ginsburg: Plaintiff’s [sic] lose.”
.
Square1, just how stupid are you? Read Ginsburg’s dissent. First of all, she questioned whether summary judgment was an appropriate way to resolve the case. Second of all, since Ginsburg didn’t resolve all of the plantiffs’ claims, how is it possible to argue that the dissenting opinion would have found that the plaintiffs lose? Ya just cannot get there.

One more thing I would like to follow up on here with you Ms Pickert. Had you really done your job, and reviewed the video or read the transcript you may have caught a point made by Mr Obama on the “Special Deals” which you propose do not matter.
.
In his answer, Mr Obama said

“OBAMA: I am certain that we’ve made sure, for example, that any burdens on states are alleviated, when it comes to what they’re going to have to chip in to make sure that we’re giving subsidies to small businesses, and subsidies to individuals, for example. BAIER: So the Connecticut deal is still in? OBAMA: So that’s not — that’s not going to be something that is going to be in this final package. I think the same is true on all of these provisions. I’ll give you some exceptions though. Something that was called a special deal was for Louisiana. It was said that there were billions — millions of dollars going to Louisiana, this was a special deal. Well, in fact, that provision, which I think should remain in, said that if a state has been affected by a natural catastrophe, that has created a special health care emergency in that state, they should get help. Louisiana, obviously, went through Katrina, and they’re still trying to deal with the enormous challenges that were faced because of that. (CROSS TALK) OBAMA: That also — I’m giving you an example of one that I consider important. It also affects Hawaii, which went through an earthquake. So that’s not just a Louisiana provision. That is a provision that affects every state that is going through a natural catastrophe.”

.
Now I ask you Ms Pickert, did Hawaii go through an earthquake which was completely ignored by the media? Did I miss a tragic event in one of our States?
.
Or, did Brett Baier allow a gaffe from the President slide?
.
But, this also follows up with other answers this man has given in the past. He said clearly during the election that there were more than 50 States. I believe it was something like “54 States” that he campaigned in during the 2008 election.
.
Now he confuses Haiti with Hawaii, isn’t that right Ms Pickert? Would you have tried to clarify this statement by the President, or would you have passed it over like Mr Baier did?

Guys, re Obama and “you can keep it”, the issue is not my parsing of Obama’s words. The issue is the context of what he’s said before and what he’s trying to do. Let’s say that there is wiggle room, and all he means now (as opposed to early February, where he “owned” the GOP according to our unbiased reporter) is that people can still get insurance through employers. Ok, fine. But he’s trying to pitch his case–so why is he taking time to make a nothing claim that sounds a lot more substantive than it is? It’s pretty shoddy, particularly after he specifically pledged that we can keep what we have.
.
Yeah, I get that things change etc. etc. and that the promise isn’t all that realistic, but why is he trying to pitch it that way. Given the 47 million BS, the shading of the facts in his insurance victim anecdotes etc., why should anyone believe him? Everyone with an ounce of sense knew that his C-SPAN promise was nonsense–so why did he make it–he’s either spectacularly dense, which isn’t true despite his Austrian comments, or he’s a liar. Which is it guys?

CW, I think he was being facetious.

How utterly boorish of you to declare that age has something to do with wisdom. No matter whether you respect the President, YOU ALWAYS RESPECT THE PRESIDENCY. BB did neither but the collective IQ of you neocons probably limit your level of critical thinking.
.
Why’d BO go there in the first place?

Yes Republicans spent like drunken sailors. I am as mad at them for doing it as you most certainly are. They have paid a price, they lost not only the White House as a result, but also both Houses in Congress.
.
Yet, RustyBlog, you can’t WAIT until those same Republicans are back in power.
.
Given that they have lied about just about EVERYTHING, why would you trust them now to ACTUALLY reign in spending and financial corruption?
.
Is it possible they are telling you just what you want to hear? Or is it possible that, as long as you personally come out ahead, you really don’t care about the spending?

You failed simply because you assume your readers are ill-informed, apathetic, and uninvolved.
.
No, RustyBlog,
.
When taking a test, you fail if you get the answer wrong. There’s no penalty for guessing and getting it right. She’s only wrong if the readers aren’t actually “ill-informed, apathetic, and uninvolved”… which it’s obvious many of them are.
.
On the other hand, calling racism because one assumed that the wife of a Supreme Court Justice is BLACK without checking (when a photo of her, readily available to all, shows that she is obviously, glaringly WHITE) is an epic fail.
.
In your case Rusty, assuming didn’t “make an a$$ out of u and me”, just YOU, bucky.
.
Better stop throwing stones from that crystal clear home of yours.

Let’s not go there, Dan Quayle.

You are so stupid, spob.
.
1. If Ginsburg had thought that the plaintiffs should have prevailed on the EPC claims then she would have filed a concurring opinion, explaining her alternative basis for reversing the lower court’s granting of summary judgment on that cause of action. Once again, dissent = PLAINTFFS LOSE.
.
2. Yes, Ginsburg questioned whether it was appropriate to resolve the case by summary judgment…for the plaintiffs granted by SCOTUS! Since the majority was announcing a new legal rule “a remand for fresh consideration would be in order. ”
.
3. Leaving aside that Ginsburg’s opinion was a dissent, only a moron could read through Ginsburg’s opinion and conclude that there was even a theoretical possibility that she would have denied defendants summary on the EPC grounds. Ginsburg does not lay out an complete EPC analysis — and had no reason to given that the majority did not address the issue — but notes the following “The Equal Protection Clause, this Court has held, prohibits only intentional discrimination.”
.
Hello, Stupid? Intentional discrimination is also a violation of Title VII. If Ginsburg had thought that plaintiffs had met their burden of showing intentional discrimination, she would have voted with the majority to reverse the Title VII portion of the decision (even if if she had to write a separate opinion to express disagreement with the disparate-treatment analysis).
.
Your attempt to suggest that Sotomayor’s statement was inaccurate is truly bizarre. Even if you disagree with Sotomayor and Ginsburg, what evidence is there that their analyses are not substantially the same? Your hyper-partisanship is driving you off the rails.
.
Let’s say that the shoe was on the other foot and Judge Cabranes was in confirmation hearings and he said “If Alito were on the 2d Circuit, he would have joined my en banc dissent.” Even though that statement cannot be literally proven because the Supreme Court articulated a standard that the 2d Circuit was not at liberty to apply, only a schmuck would dispute that it is 99.9% true. You, spob, are that schmuck.
.

Did this thugish behavior cost the Republicans at the polls in the next election?
-
Nope, as you point out, they did just fine in ’04.
-
The difference is that the right-wing paramedia will harp on this “issue” nonstop over and over again until November, and the MSM will follow suit. They permanently bias our discourse toward stupid.

Do you actually practice law? I’m just curious because it seems like you have no earthly idea what you’re talking about.
.
Let’s review the basics (once again). You have to remember the procedural posture of the case. The District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants. A condition precedent to the granting of summary judgment for the defendants is that there is no genuine issue of material fact on any of the plaintiffs’ claims and that defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on all those claims.
.
Plaintiffs appealed to the Second Circuit–Second Circuit affirms. And what that means is that the Second Circuit concluded that, once again, on all of the plaintiffs’ claims (and not just some of them) that there was no genuine issue of material fact and that defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on all the plaintiffs’ claims.
.
Plaintiffs appealed to the full en banc court, and the court concluded that it was not going to rehear the case. Then Plaintiffs filed their cert. petition which was granted.
.
When the Supreme Court ruled, instead of simply reversing the SJ grant and tossing the case back, it decided on statutory grounds that the Plaintiffs were entitled to judgment.
.
Ginsburg took issue with both the failure to toss the case back AND the merits of the Court’s resolution of the Plaintiffs’ statutory claims. Her opinion like the Court’s simply did not address the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims (which are different, see Scalia’s concurring opinion). But the problem for Sotomayor is that in order for her to get to the “Ginsburg’s dissent would have affirmed the Second Circuit”, Ginsburg’s dissent would have had to discuss and reject the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims. It didn’t. Thus, Sotomayor was incorrect when she said that Ginsburg’s opinion would have affirmed her. Ginsburg’s opinion is silent on the point.
.
Now how hard is that?

I didn’t see this article until today.
I just want everybody to remember, that, if I ever get as tedious as spob, please let me know.

spob, you’re being a complete BORE!

I have no idea how people like spob can work a full time job with typical long hours as most of us have today and still have time to argue a Republican talking point until it is long dead.

BTW: If the Republicans were being cooperative in seeking to correct potential errors rather than complete obstructionist eager to use the filibusterer to kill all chance at health care reform, reconciliation – which is not new and not exclusively something one party has used – would not be needed.

Guys, Obama himself said to the GOP that HCR violated two core promises. And that was last month.
.
Second, it’s not up to me to disprove squat. When Obama makes glib statements like “If you like your healthcare insurance, you can keep it.” when he has no way of knowing whether or not that will be the case (and where all indications are that Obamacare will alter what insurance cos. bring to the market), I can call him dishonest. Making claims when you have no idea whether they’re going to be true or not is NOT honesty. And we were promised a lot better. (Has “Hope and Change” deteriorated that much? I mean really, are you now saying that as long as an outlandish claim cannot be proven false that it’s ok? An asteroid is going to hit the earth on January 1, 2012–prove me wrong.)

I’ve watched the entire interview, and the most telling part of it is in the first four minutes. Obama DOES directly answer what Baier asks; his answer: “I don’t care about procedure”.

I don’t see what is wrong with this answer. I respect it. Obama just wants to get new policies passed, and though the cornhusker-kickback-like methods of Congress are indeed ugly (and thankfully no longer applicable), the end result is a reformed health care system that’ll save us $1 trillion by 2020. How can anyone complain about that?

But for someone to say your posts are too long, after they’ve written several thousand words of their own, that’s completely ridiculous.
.
Self-reflection has NEVER been spob’s strong suite.

How can anyone complain about that?
.
Remember, you’re dealing with knee-jerk, reactive defense of conservative dogma here.
.
Complaining is what they do best…

patricksartor, spob taking over all threads with irrelevant comments was one reason many long time commenters left Swampland. I’m not responding to him as I don’t and it is Thursday, but wanted to let you know your observations are not new. Happily he seems to have found another place to play for the most part and I hope the people there find him interesting.

Heck no – we’d have a stubborn, cranky old man and his ditzy, clueless, birther VP instead. Do you even know who you’re supporting?

A majority…that’s A MAJORITY…of Americans DO NOT want Obamacare to pass. Get it? A majority.

If the Dems strong-arm this abomination through, and I’m borrowing from Harry Truman here, they will experience a rain of ruin the like of which NEVER has been seen in American politics.

Stuart,
I don’t understand why you are making such a big deal out of a statement of truth by spob.
He has a very valid point in his comments. You seem to have a problem with it not because it isn’t true but because it can be used against Obamacare.
Since it is a true statement than you should not be against its use in a discussion.
With so many people on this blog not using real facts, we should not be debating whether facts should or should not be used in this discussion.
Sometimes we need to accept obvious facts without the need for a link to try and validate them.

northpole,
What an ignorant comment.
If you truly believe that garbage you are a totally hopeless individual and make zero contribution to our democracy.

The Opacity of Hope – A Haiku:

http://haikme.wordpress.com/2010/03/18/the-opacity-of-hope/

I’ve run across two well thought and clear thinking conservatives: Earl Jr and AMackley.

New Freedom bra, Free in pizza, slob have been just all about reciting hollow talking points.

It makes me wonder if it really is true that a huge majority of people voting Republican are just that far out of touch with reality.

I mean, New Freedom bra has all of his evidence for his case by citing himself and a few other right wing concepts.

Free in pizza spouts out problems such as our deficit, but ignores where it came from (W) what can be done about it (a tax increase on those who can afford to pay it – not the poor) and, if not addressed, what historically goes wrong (not much and we’ve been running some kind of a deficit since before World War II and many of them a much larger percentage of Gross Domestic Product than this – sorry I can not tell exactly when, but I do have a job).

I, actually, would find some intelligent conservatives refreshing.

slob is about as refreshing as a mouthful of sand in the desert.

You mean this Harry Truman?

http://trumanlibrary.org/publicpapers/index.php?pid=2319&st=&st1=

That man, also proposing universal health care would have, if were subject to what Clinton and Obama were by him, punched out Rush Limbaugh and knocked his teeth out.

If the media did this to W, we would not have this second war or this debt to clean up.

But, Jack just likes to see the media ATTEMPT and fail to bait Obama.

By the way, you can’t use Richard Nixon, JFK, FDR or even Theodore Roosevelt because they all had national health care plans.

You’ll have to stick to brilliant and witty comments by Gerald Ford and George W Bush.

You know something afguy, if you were truly honest, had any level of integrity and were not simply a TROLL, I might even enjoy debating you.
.
BUT, you are a troll and not worth my time.

In in normal English, Afguy, that means that you outsmarted him the bra.

Take the spin off of it and that is all he is saying.

They will be four years older and a lot smarter in 2012.
You would be amazed [and very disappointed] if you new how many people I know who voted for Obama last election and are now having Major Buyer’s Remorse. They are really disappointed in the direction Obama is taking our country and would never vote for him again.

patrick,
“I just want everybody to remember, that, if I ever get as tedious as spob, please let me know”
I’m letting you know. Not only are you as tedious as spob, you are more tedious then spob.
spob has made a very valid and accurate point. It is obviously true to anyone using logic or common sense. This long thread has no meaning except to claim this fact can be used against Obamacare.
The fact that it is a true statement seems to not be important to liberals only that it could hurt Obama and therefore should not be used.
Facts are facts.

“This long thread has no meaning except to claim this fact can be used against Obamacare.”

Please explain this considering that spob came out with this the day before the compromise legislation was shown to the public.

From my brief look so far, it appears that “This long thread has no meaning [at all]” since people will be able to keep their own health care.

Therefore, spob is being a tedious bore.

Haha! Suuuuure they do!

We got our first Black President, They want him to fail

They say if you ain’t Conservative, You going to Hell,

But my God don’t play no Politics

If he had to vote I bet it’d be Obama b*tch!

Ya’ll fools more dumb than Potsie

How you gonna call a Black Man a Nazi

Those are some lyrics, now check out the video for

SOMETIMES I… by Macarone

Download free at http://www.thedopincrecords.com

dophouse,
People against Obamacare are not racists. They are concerned citizens who believe Obamacare will be a disaster for our country. Race has nothing to do with it except in the minds of liberals.
We want real HCR not a government take over of our Health Care System.
The government has screwed up everything it tries to run except the military. What makes you think Health Care will be any different?

3X

I think that saying that they didn’t screw up things with the military is too favorable.

The VA?

Hiring Blackwater?

As for Republicans tapping into racists for votes, ask Chairman of the Republican National Committee Lee Atwater on his deathbed confession in 1991 (age 40)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater

“You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

Sure, most conservatives are very anti-racist and do not even remember very often that black people exist or are poor. (Live in most of American suburbia, and it is easy to forget that there is such a thing as non-whites).

Dophouse might be taking the idea a little bit too far, but, middle income and poor whites along with blacks need better health care and the “death panel” scare opposition is not acting out of love for anybody poor white or black.

thank you admin nice postmp3 dinlespeaks only Dutchmp3 indirhard to trust anythingdizi izle