Conservative columnist Bowyer tries to claim death panels are in health reform bill, hilarity ensues
August 14, 2009 8:56 pm ET
From the August 14th edition of CNBC's Kudlow Report:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
"DID YOU READ THE BILL?! READ THE BILL! IT'S IN THERE! THERE ARE DEATH PANELS IN THERE!"
Guys like this need to just go away. Sooner, the better.
Um, sadly, no. Someone didn't look in the mirror before he went on TV--that's why he was laughing.
He never did say he read it but if he did, he must work on his reading comprehension and the visions he sees between the written word. God probably gave him that ability.
Jerry, Fox is full and Luigi Dobblini is next aborad. So slow down, watch that heart rate and take care.
It would be a lot of fun to watch Lou's campaign crash and burn then rise again the next day to crash and burn once more. I'm all in favor of him parading himself around our state so he can see how much the people really love him.
Or not.
I'm with you, King. I was practically salivating at the ass whupping that that reactionary old fart would have surely received had he shown the stones to put his racist, fear-mongering agenda before the people.
"DID YOU READ THE BILL?! DID YOU READ THE BILL?!"
Well, Jerry, did you?
He was terrible on the radio here though may have been a little ahead of his time as now all right wing talkers are belligerent.
Kudlow and CNBC FAIL by:
Not having the known controversial sections up on a prompter to confront the Conservative Screech Monkey on his lies on the content but similarly challenging the Progressive commentators on what protections the bill has to ensure that Physicians aren't encouraged to promote aggressive advanced directives and living wills. Also they should point out where we are at today. What are current end-of-life practices across the country? Where is the Medicare solvency curve? These are the things that MEDIA should be doing to confront those who want to stop all reform by pointing out that they are promoting the least fiscally responsible position of all: letting Medicare, already fiscally unstable, be flooded by the Baby Boomers and hastening total fiscal collapse.
Where you see legal loop holes that allow for your fantasy "death panels" to exist, I see iron clad doors that shuts out even the mere possibility.
That includes Bowyer, Boykin, MMFA and most of the commentators here.
Bowyer
Bowyer either hasn't read section 1233, doesn't understand it or chooses to lie about it. On the other hand, his question, "have you read section 1233?" ,to Boykin is perfectly fair. And once Boykin won't say 'yes', Bowyer's got Boykin.
Boykin:
Boykin's a political commentator denying that death panels are in the proposed bill. Bowyer lobs a softball to you. Not have you read the bill. But "Have you read section 1233?" And at the very minimum, you can't say "Yes, I have." I'm just gobsmacked (neat word I just heard). And if I were Boykin I'd have a copy of it in front of me.
Shame on you, Mr. Boykin. Want to see how hard it is find the authoritative text of section 1233? I found it earlier by a different route. Here's a reasonable way I've found it today. Let's assume you don't know the number of the bill. A few googles and you're going to find out it is HR3200. Follow a link for text and I get an error message from Thomas that it can't find the linked page.
But I know I'm in the right place. Thomas is a Library of Congress searchable database that includes proposed bills. Any politician, political journalist should know about Thomas. I go back up a couple of levels, enter 3200 into a search box and go to section 1233.
I'm not going to include the text here. But I put the entire section in an online word counter. Guess who many words?
100, 500, 1000, 2000, 5000.
The answer: 1544 words. I'm not requiring Boykin to completely understand section 1233. I don't completely understand it either because it uses the specialized vocabulary of health care legislation. But you have to spend some time reading it.
MMFA:
There's a practical reason for not giving this interview any play at MMFA. MMFA is a fact-checking organization with a liberal agenda. To be effective, it has go beyond speaking to the choir. It's stock in trade is a reputation for fairness. That includes holding the people on your side to reasonable standards. A quick test: If you reversed the roles, would Boykin be wrong?
The other commentators
Let's just leave this as a teaching moment they might want to explore.
I agree with your criticism of Boykin but don't know why you think Media Matters should be criticised for putting up the interview. They criticise the MEDIA for not doing their job when conservatives misinform. Further, other people posting on here don't need a lecture from you.
According to MMFA, we're suppose to agree with the hilarity expressed by Boykin against Bowyer. We should be on Boykin's side.
As a partisan ,you can get away (most of the time) with not mentioning the ignorance, lies and stupidity of those you usually agree with. I think that the section 1233 have gone far enough that those opposed to the bill aren't cut that much slack.
But what you shouldn't do, if you want to be respected is to postiviely use something that shows stupidity , ignorance and laziness by those you agree with. Huh? People either won't watch or won't understand the video and they'll take away the headlines of 'hilarity.'
Can't happen? MMFA has an entry about the beating up of Gladney. This is getting widespread coverage even though the very video taken at that time and offered as proof shows it never happened
I used site: to limit results to MMFA
site:http://mediamatters.org "media matters mission statement" OR "media matter mission"
This gives 14 results, none of which are relevant
There were 3,470 results
site:http://mediamatters.org mission so I only looked at the first couple of pages.
I did however look at the "about us" at mmfa. Can't see how it makes me wrong. The mission of MMFA includes:
Additionally, Media Matters works daily to notify activists, journalists, pundits, and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims and to take direct action against offending media institutions.
MMFA wants to be a resource that journalists will use --- yes they're partisan, but they've got to be active partisans. This interview and the headlines don't help.
My point is that the media doesn't do their job, and that's what Media Matters is all about. Uninformed, incompetent or just plain lazy journalism happens every day. I often yell at my radio when listening to NPR. They present right wing LIES as something to seriously discuss with the 'ole "he said/she said" crap, and this is considered to be objective coverage.
Too often misinformation is given in the corporate media, and it goes unchallenged by the interviewer. And, as you point out, the interviewer is not informed enough to challenge the spin or outright lies.