Fox & Friends' Doocy falsely claimed Clinton would make driver's licenses for illegal immigrants "necessary"
On the November 1 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, discussing criticism of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) comments on a proposal by New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D) to provide driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, co-host Steve Doocy asserted that Clinton said in an October 31 campaign statement, "As president, her goal will be to pass comprehensive immigration reform that would make this necessary." Fox displayed an on-air graphic of the text as read by Doocy, who then asked, "So what's that mean?" Co-host Gretchen Carlson replied, "I don't know. It's hard to understand, and I guess that might be the point, guys." But as The Washington Post and The Boston Globe both reported November 1, the statement issued by the Clinton campaign actually said: "As President, her goal will be to pass comprehensive immigration reform that would make [the New York proposal] unnecessary" [emphasis added].
Clinton's October 31 statement, quoted by the Post and the Globe, read as follows:
Senator Clinton supports governors like Governor Spitzer who believe they need such a measure to deal with the crisis caused by this administration's failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform. As President, her goal will be to pass comprehensive immigration reform that would make this unnecessary.
From the November 1 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:
DOOCY: Well, she did issue a statement yesterday to clarify her official statement.
BRIAN KILMEADE (co-host): OK, good. Let's hear this.
DOOCY: OK. Does this make any sense to you out there in TV land?
"Senator Clinton supports governors like Governor Spitzer who believe they need such a measure to deal with the crisis caused by this administration's failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform. As president, her goal will be to pass comprehensive immigration reform that would make this necessary."
So what's that mean?
CARLSON: I don't know. It's hard to understand, and I guess that might be the point, guys. Because, you know, politicians don't like to take stands on sometimes on really serious issues, because then they offend the other side.
I wish Fox and Friends would back up their stupid lies. Is that too much to ask for them?
I swear, it seems the the the F&F talking heads are lying more and more each day. Doocy has been especially bad. What with MMFA and Newshounds repeatedly calling him out on his lies, he should be embarrassed that he's handing out all these falsehoods to his viewers. He's become nothing more than a GOP shill and an uninformed clown.
This isn't about the much loved "comprehensive" talking point that so many politicians, including Bush and Hillary, love to trot out when specifically asked to take a tough stand on controlling our borders. She was asked a direct question on whether she favors giving legal documents to illegal aliens....and instead of answering it directly, she triangulated and avoided it.
Pathetic, but she is not alone.
Actually she was asked if she supported a state</> law, specifically an NY state law, and that limitation makes all the difference in the world but why state the facts correctly.
One more time, NO candidate was asked about immigration on the federal level and HRC's answer was specifically tailored to the narrowness of the moderator's question.
Well, neither Dodd nor Edwards were satisified with her non-answer.........so your beef is first with them.
Well Tommy, most people know that Dodd and Edwards are two of the biggest phonies running for office. Edwards makes me sick to even hear him, and Dodd just makes me want to take a shower. The attacks that they spewed toward Hillary are unwarranted.
Attacks? They were simply trying to understand her "answer", which we all were, and are?
She was for it before she was against it & then for it again...or maybe not.
Hope that helps ;-)
Oh well J, then it must the media's fault.
She was for it before she was against it & then for it again...or maybe not.
Ah Jeter, I knew you have the expertise on the subject after having "Mitt pro-choice/pro-life Romney" for governor. ;-)
Maybe attack is the incorrect word, but they have their own issues , instead of discussing this Dodd should come clean about his Iraq vote and his appearances on Imus. Edwards is just disgusting with his lies and hedgefund money. I loved Kusinich when he gave Edwards that dig!!!
Would you care to tell us what lies your referencing in relation to John Edwards?
sure
November 13, 2005:Edwards: “The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate. The information the American people were hearing from the president — and that I was being given by our intelligence community — wasn’t the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war.”
November 20, 2005:Bob Graham: [link to www.washingtonpost.com] color="#aa7d39">“What I knew Before the Invasion.” Graham tells us that everyone on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee knew that Bush was lying about weapons of mass destruction. Graham begins like a good, loyal Democrat, telling us that his colleagues were deceived, at least “most” of them. But he then tells us that the Senate Select Intelligence Committee knew better. John Edwards was a [link to en.wikipedia.org] color="#aa7d39">member of that Senate Select Intelligence Committee, and he voted for the war.
May 1, 2007:For his part Edwards is now exposed by Senator Durbin’s disclosure that the Senate Select Intelligence Committee knew that the administration was lying in the lead-up to the war on Iraq. Durbin excuses himself from hiding the truth from the public by saying the committee was sworn to secrecy. But that was a time to come forward with the truth and take the consequences–even jail–to stop a war based on lies. And it is even worse to have been on that committee and to have voted for the war. John Edwards was on that committee. John Edwards voted for the war. It turns out that John Edwards did in fact know then what he knows now! Durbin is the second Senator to have outed Edwards in this way, the first being former Senator Bob Graham.
Side Notes:He cosponsored Lieberman’s S.J.RES.46, the Iraq War Resolution, and also later voted for it in the full Senate to authorize the use of military force against Iraq, saying on October 10, 2002 that “Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace; that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists; that he is a grave threat to the region, to vital allies like Israel, and to the United States; and that he is thwarting the will of the international community and undermining the United Nations’ credibility.“
In an October 10, 2004 appearance on Meet the Press, Edwards told Tim Russert “I would have voted for the resolution knowing what I know today, because it was the right thing to do to give the president the authority to confront Saddam Hussein…I think Saddam Hussein was a very serious threat. I stand by that, and that’s why [John Kerry and I] stand behind our vote on the resolution.” ~wikipedia
Who were the members of the committee? They were Senators Bayh, Edwards, DURBIN, Feinstein, LEVIN, MIKULSKI, Rockefeller and WYDEN as well as Tom Daschle, then majority leader, an ex officio member. I have made bold those who voted for the war resolution and I have capitalized those who voted against the war resolution and who should be hailed as senators of integrity. But Bayh, Daschle, Edwards, Feinstein and Rockefeller, all of whom with the exception of Feinstein, have presidential ambitions, voted for the war despite the fact that they had good reason to know the administration was Bushies were lying. (And let’s not forget the Republicans on the committee: Dewine, Hatch, Inhoffe, Kyle, Lugar, Roberts, Richard Shelby, Fred Thompson and ex officio, Trent Lott.) Yes, Bush did push for the Iraq war. Yes, Bush asserted that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Bush also had help — a 296-133 House vote and 77-23 Senate vote in favor of a resolution authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, with Clinton, former Sen. John Edwards, and Sens. Joe Biden and Christopher Dodd voting in the “yes” column.
Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) told a campaign-trail audience earlier that he had read the NIE report, but later recanted.
Well that's a unique argument, I'll give you that much.
It does nothing to address the facts but I fear that's a bit too much to expect.
"Do you support or oppose Gov. Spitzer's proposal"? Direct answer would be Yes, or No, and then explain your position. Hillary opted out. Simple.
Yes in Hannityland everything is black and white, yes or no.
Unfortunately, a debate where you're limited by 30 second answers plays right into that.
I understood her answer but it takes longer than a 30 second attention span.
Of course, it's Hannity's fault.......doh!
Exactly.
Hannity and his sheep who think in black and white, them or us, and 30 second sound bites.
Firedoglake folks would disagree with you Tommy. They liked her support for Stark, so do I.
The thread title refferrenced a pile-on, the lady handled it.
If she makes it all the way, I'd recomend a complete cut off of MSM news and opinion. Unless you like the idea of listening to fingernails on a blackboard 24/7/4+
...and the issue of this posting by MMFA isn't HRCs performance at the debate, the issue is why Fox News newsreaders can't seem to read a simple press release correctly when other news organizations don't seem to have that problem.
Care to address that issue?
Fox & Friends messed up the quote, they should correct it.
Either way Clinton's muddled answer confused even her Democratic debate colleagues, not just us "rightwingers" or the evil media.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
She answered the question thoroughly the first time. She pointed out that the millions of illegals that are assuredly driving our roads would be better for the public to be licensed and insured than not!
Any public policy or politician that would prefer they were not, should also have an immediate plan for disposing of them and their vehicles since they are going to drive, and have accidents with or without a license and insurance. If they raise the issue without the solution, they're just pushing the xenophobic button for their bigoted constituents.
The question is really whether you want to wait for the federal government to pass immigration legislation before we license and insure these drivers?
The ignorant, and insincere among us would make the argument just that a state gave I.D. to an illegal alien, of course their tune changes when they're on the side of the road after an MVA, and the other immigrant driver chose to run, instead of prove insurance and license they don't have!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Wow. This didn't take long. By this time next week, they'll have Hillary giving free cars to illegal aliens.
Chris Dodd will that is for sure.
quoted by the Post and the Globe, read as follows:
...comprehensive immigration reform that would make this unnecessary.
DOOCY: comprehensive immigration reform that would make this necessary."
You know you're in trouble when NEWSREADERS can't even read a press release correctly.
Is this an accident?
Of course not.
DOOCY: OK. Does this make any sense to you out there in TV land?
No...because it's a complete misrepresentation
Now, how many viewers of FOX do you think there are who saw the show and now believe Hillary Clinton said that her comprehensive immigration plan would make a licensing program such as Gov. Spitzer's mandatory?
What are the chances that FOX will air a correction?
And people wonder why the Democratic candidates disdainfully reject a debate on FOX? What other mischief is FOX capable of?
Seriosly...are these people at FOX really this stupid? Or that mendacious?
If any of us did our jobs this poorly we'd be fired.
In the Bush White House they give you medals for screwing up. Maybe FOX does the same...
Press release: "As president, I will not raise taxes for the middle class!"
Fox News Quote: "As president, I will [...] raise taxes for the middle class!"
Yeah... It's now that bad.
When you control the airwaves, you can lie and smear at will.
Hitler understood this, and so do Cheney and Bush.
How dramatic.
I realize you're supporting my point, but please don't resort to a Godfrey to do it. First, this thread is waaaay to short (only 30 rely's at the time I'm writing this. It should be 200 or more before the Nazi's come into play!) Second - we (progressives) are better than that. We're smarter than that. There's no need to engage in the kind of hyperbole that the Right does. Aside from that however - you are correct. And THANK GOD for sites like this one who call them on it!!!
Fox and Friends is the dumbest show on TV. I can't believe people watch it for any serious news. I looked up Steve Doocy and found that he does have good credentials as a news person. What happened to him? He seems to be getting senile.
J'accuse!!! I am only ONE person, in ONE country, on ONE planet.
Recently, and on-going (as this article attests) there has been discussion, reporting (print, cable, internet) of issues related to immigration and labor. I take no stand or position on the matter, nor is it significant what the position of others may be on it. But the use of terms such as "illegal immigrants" and "illegals" to refer to persons found in this country without proper documents is, almost literally, ubiquitous!!!
Although the combined form has 'wriggle-room' for endless and sterile debate, the single term "illegal(s)", as a noun is fatal and it demonstrates a disturbing, highly alarming and absolutely reprehensible trend forming in our country. Use of these terms to refer to human individuals who are in this country without propler legal documentation is DANGEROUS!!! In a very real context, this attaches illegality onto the body, the flesh and blood body, of the person referred to; it thus makes it part of that person's very biology.!!
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights expressly and precisely describes ALL human beings as bearers of rights. To refer to someone as 'an illegal' or 'an illegal immigrant' cannot but DENY such rights.
Using the category or adjective 'Aryan', the Nazis developed a doctrine of Biological Superiority and thus saw themselves EXCLUSIVELY distinct from all other human beings. Very ugly, very generalized and very ubiquitous assumptions, presumptions and attitudes are daily being expressed ALL ACROSS THE BOARD in the media.
I am only ONE person, but as far as I'm concerned, ANYONE who uses terms like this in any context to refer to human beings is in my opinion and my estimation a follower of a Nazi Doctrine and I assert my own human rights to describe persons like this as Nazis, in the strictest definition of that term possible. And I will refer to them as such in person and in writing wherever and whenever I encounter it. No human being is biologically superior and different in kind from any other human being.