Fox News reports on town hall protesters being "organized" sandwich Hemmer's and Tantaros' denial of same
During the August 12 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, Bill Hemmer and Andrea Tantaros rebuffed Bob Beckel's claim that the protesters opposed to Democratic health care reform appearing at town hall meetings are "organized." But in reports a half-hour earlier and a half-hour later, Carl Cameron confirmed the organizing strategy, reporting that meetings are being "heavily organized by critics," with tea party organizers, among others, "aggressively organizing to bring big crowds."
10:03 a.m. ET: Cameron says tea party organizers "aggressively organizing to bring big crowds"
Cameron: "[F]olks who held the tea parties back in April are aggressively organizing to bring big crowds." While reporting on two town halls held by Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), chief political correspondent Carl Cameron stated: "[T]here are dozens of small organizations across Iowa, across the country, who have been sort of bringing people out. And the folks who held the tea parties back in April are aggressively organizing to bring big crowds to the town hall meeting later this afternoon in Des Moines."
10:36 a.m. ET: Hemmer and Tantaros push back against claim that town meetings are "organized"
Hemmer and Tantaros rebuff Beckel's point that "town meetings" are "organized." Later on the same program, roughly half an hour after Cameron's report, Fox News political analyst Bob Beckel said, "[F]or anybody who believes that these things are not organized, I used to do this for a living. I used to get these town meetings organized with my grassroots company." Co-host Bill Hemmer refuted Beckel by stating: "We bring members of Congress on TV and ... they say they get 20 or 30 people out there. I mean, you are talking a thousand on a hot afternoon in August. These people have to wait in line six hours." FoxNews.com contributor Andrea Tantaros added: "[T]he only thing that is organized are the unions showing up." When Beckel again stated that that the protests are "organized by groups on the other side that are spending their time calling these people," Tantaros replied, "Bob, keep telling yourself that."
From the August 12 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:
BECKEL: You all ought to back off. Did he make progress yesterday? Yes, because he underscored a couple of things. How absolutely ridiculous and fearmongering these arguments are. And secondly, for anybody who believes that these things are not organized, I used to do this for a living. I used to get these town meetings organized with my grassroots company.
HEMMER: But --
BECKEL: That doesn't mean these people don't have a right to be there and make their case.
HEMMER: -- just on that point, Bob. We bring members of Congress on TV and they --
BECKEL: But just for a moment that this is --
HEMMER: I understand. But we bring them on TV; they say they get 20 or 30 people out there. I mean, you are talking a thousand --
TANTAROS: Yeah.
BECKEL: Yeah, and if -- the ones that they ask --
HEMMER: -- on a hot afternoon in August. These people have to wait in line six hours.
TANTAROS: It's mostly seniors, too, Bill. Look at the audience.
BECKEL: The ones they asked in Pennsylvania yesterday, virtually all of them said they had gotten emails from groups that are organized to oppose health care reform.
HEMMER: That's not what they said.
TANTROS: The only thing --
BECKEL: Now what does that tell you?
TANTAROS: Bob, the only thing that is organized are the unions showing up. Those are the most professionally made signs --
BECKEL: Oh, come on.
TANTAROS: No, look at the signs, Bob. They are professionally made. You can't tell me when you have a bill that is baked with every kind of political poison -- I mean, tax increases, half a trillion dollars in tax increases, penalties for businesses, something that's going to increase the national debt, something that's going to cut 500 billion for Medicare, you cannot expect anything but real outrage.
BECKEL: You believe -- you believe -- you really believe that this was a nonorganized, spontaneous outpouring of democracy?
TANTAROS: Oh --
BECKEL: If you believe that, then you believe in the tooth fairy.
TANTAROS: Oh, yeah.
BECKEL: I'm telling you, these people, they don't like this health care reform. I understand that, and they've got a right to be heard. But to suggest that they are not organized by groups on the other side that are spending their time calling these people, getting to these things, and saying, by the way, make sure you write handwritten signs. If you believe that that is spontaneous, then --
TANTAROS: Bob, keep telling yourself that.
BECKEL: -- frankly, you've lost touch with reality.
HEMMER: I'm going to give you the last word, Andrea, then we've got to run, OK?
TANTAROS: Bill, the polls reflect exactly what I'm saying. You cannot fudge the numbers.
11:05 a.m. ET: Cameron again confirms critics' strategy of "organizing" turnout for meetings
Cameron cites Grassley town hall as "one of these town halls that being heavily organized by critics" of health care plan. Following his report on America's Newsroom, Cameron reported on Fox News' Happening Now that an upcoming Grassley town hall is "an example of one of these town halls that's being heavily organized by critics -- folks who ran the big, famous tea parties back in April during tax time across the country protesting the government's taxation of American civilians. All of those folks are being sort of ginned up to turn out tonight." Cameron added: "And they're angry that Grassley is participating in the negotiations with Democrats out of fear that he might give away the store and let what critics say is a liberal big government takeover of health care advance unabated."
Conservatives have strategy to pack town halls
Several conservative groups are engaged in efforts to encourage their members to attend town halls. Conservative organizations opposed to health care reform -- including FreedomWorks, Americans for Prosperity, and Conservatives for Patients' Rights -- are conducting a campaign to turn out their supporters to attend those events. CPR has reportedly "confirmed that it has undertaken a concerted effort to get people out to the town hall meetings to protest reform," while FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity have reportedly "organized" the town hall protesters and are "harnessing social networking Web sites to organize their supporters in much the same way Mr. Obama did during his election campaign." [Greg Sargent, The Plum Line, 8/4/09; The New York Times, 8/3/09]
America's Health Insurance Plans reportedly deploying employees to "track[] where local lawmakers hold town-hall meetings," "rebut" Democrats. On July 30, The Wall Street Journal reported: "[I]nsurers continue to wage an aggressive campaign against Democrats' proposals to create a public health-insurance plan. America's Health Insurance Plans has stationed employees in 30 states who are tracking where local lawmakers hold town-hall meetings." And on August 5, the paper reported: "The health-insurance industry said Tuesday it is launching an effort to send insurance-company employees to public meetings nationwide this month to rebut increasing criticism of the industry from the White House and top Democrats." [The Wall Street Journal; 7/30/09, 8/5/09]
Transcripts
From the August 12 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:
CAMERON: Now, because of Grassley's role as the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, and the only negotiator still from the GOP working with Democrats, there has been something of a grassroots attempt to try to put increased pressure on him, and he can expect some pretty raucous town halls today.
This first one of the day is likely to be pretty quiet. The one later today could have thousands of people. And the stakes were raised dramatically this week when President Obama actually gave Grassley and those two other Republican senators a big shout-out. Listen to this.
OBAMA [video clip]: There are some of my Republican friends on Capitol Hill who are sincerely trying to figure out if they're can find a health care bill that works. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Mike Enzi of Wyoming, Olympia Snowe from Maine, have been.
CAMERON: As a result of that and the public reporting on their participation with Democrats in trying to craft a deal, there has been a real grassroots organizational effort to put pressure on them. And there are dozens of small organizations across Iowa, across the country, who have been sort of bringing people out.
And the folks who held the tea parties back in April are aggressively organizing to bring big crowds to the town hall meeting later this afternoon in Des Moines. That one is set up for just 500 people. They're saying a couple of thousand, Megyn, so it could be pretty loud.
[...]
BOB BECKEL (Fox News political analyst): You all ought to back off. Did he make progress yesterday? Yes, because he underscored a couple of things. How absolutely ridiculous and fearmongering these arguments are. And secondly, for anybody who believes that these things are not organized, I used to do this for a living. I used to get these town meetings organized with my grassroots company.
HEMMER: But --
BECKEL: That doesn't mean these people don't have a right to be there and make their case.
HEMMER: -- just on that point, Bob. We bring members of Congress on TV and they --
BECKEL: But just for a moment that this is --
HEMMER: I understand. But we bring them on TV; they say they get 20 or 30 people out there. I mean, you are talking a thousand --
TANTAROS: Yeah.
BECKEL: Yeah, and if -- the ones that they ask --
HEMMER: -- on a hot afternoon in August. These people have to wait in line six hours.
TANTAROS: It's mostly seniors, too, Bill. Look at the audience.
BECKEL: The ones they asked in Pennsylvania yesterday, virtually all of them said they had gotten emails from groups that are organized to oppose health care reform.
HEMMER: That's not what they said.
TANTROS: The only thing --
BECKEL: Now what does that tell you?
TANTAROS: Bob, the only thing that is organized are the unions showing up. Those are the most professionally made signs --
BECKEL: Oh, come on.
TANTAROS: No, look at the signs, Bob. They are professionally made. You can't tell me when you have a bill that is baked with every kind of political poison -- I mean, tax increases, half a trillion dollars in tax increases, penalties for businesses, something that's going to increase the national debt, something that's going to cut 500 billion for Medicare, you cannot expect anything but real outrage.
BECKEL: You believe -- you believe -- you really believe that this was a nonorganized, spontaneous outpouring of democracy?
TANTAROS: Oh --
BECKEL: If you believe that, then you believe in the tooth fairy.
TANTAROS: Oh, yeah.
BECKEL: I'm telling you, these people, they don't like this health care reform. I understand that, and they've got a right to be heard. But to suggest that they are not organized by groups on the other side that are spending their time calling these people, getting to these things, and saying, by the way, make sure you write handwritten signs. If you believe that that is spontaneous, then --
TANTAROS: Bob, keep telling yourself that.
BECKEL: -- frankly, you've lost touch with reality.
HEMMER: I'm going to give you the last word, Andrea, then we've got to run, OK?
TANTAROS: Bill, the polls reflect exactly what I'm saying. You cannot fudge the numbers.
From the August 12 edition of Fox News' Happening Now:
RICK FOLBAUM (anchor): But later on today, I understand, Carl, there's going to be another one of these forums hosted by Senator Grassley, and that one could get interesting. Why?
CAMERON: Well, in part, because it's going to be closer to Des Moines, the state's largest city, where more people can come. It's later in the day, so they'll be getting out of work, and because it is one -- an example of one of these town halls that's being heavily organized by critics -- folks who ran the big, famous tea parties back in April during tax time across the country protesting the government's taxation of American civilians. All of those folks are being sort of ginned up to turn out tonight.
And the event, at 5:30 Eastern Time, was expected to have about 500 people. It could have several thousand, according to the organizers, and they're coming loaded for bear. They want to make their voices heard. And they're angry that Grassley is participating in the negotiations with Democrats out of fear that he might give away the store and let what critics say is a liberal big government takeover of health care advance unabated.
Mr. Grassley argues that it's his duty to take part in these hearings, this legislative process, as the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee. And, he says, it gives him an opportunity, potentially, to moderate the more liberal ideas that some of the Democrats are offering, and if for no other reason, at least to know what's going on, Rick, and tell the public about it.
To be fair, the protest aren't really organized. It would be more accurate to call them disorganized or even chaotic.
Now, whether or not they are orchestrated... that's another matter.
There, i beat all the trolls to it.
I mean, anyone can play this game. Let's say the conservatives wanted to pass a bill expanding gun rights. I bet if we went on TV and said that the bill requires every kindergartener to receive gun training using live ammunition, and that every parent who opposed would be locked up for child neglect and their children would be put in foster care, we could get people to yell and scream bloody murder too. But that's the thing; if you lie and deliberately scare people, people get scared about what you're lying about. I personally can't think of anything that's in the bill that these people have gotten upset about. Can anyone?
I was watching Morning Joe this morning and I forget the guest's name, but his argument was basically that this anger is real and that Americans truly are scared and upset about health care reform. He was right, but that doesn't validate their fears. People in the middle ages were genuinely scared of witches and dragons. People in China have a fear of the number "4" because the spoken word for "4" and "death" are the same in Mandarin (I believe, but it could be Cantonese). If you tell people to be afraid of something, you can convince some of them to be afraid. But that doesn't mean they should be.
There is no final bill.
I generally agree with you on most issues and you post intelligently and thoughtfully. But it does appear you have a bone to pick with Right On and it's beginning to appear nothing but gratuitous at this point. Don't get me wrong, I am not telling you how to respond or what to say, I just thought perhaps you'd appreciate a different viewpoint.
I disagree with Right On and many of his positions, but I don't feel the animosity or personal dislike of anyone here based on their opinions, even if they are laced with a little temper on occasion.
It just seems that when you stick to issues it speaks well for your opinions, and for those of us who share them. When it becomes a targeted personal vendetta it becomes rather boring.
Just my take.
I read every topic posted here and nearly all the comments by posters, as much as I can. I comment on occasion when I feel my contribution is warranted, but I see the disrespect and vitriol that many display, from all viewpoints. It is one aspect I find disappointing and why I respect Obama and what he is trying to do everyday.
I don't think you are blameless in these exchanges with Clams Casino by any means, but that is just my opinion.
It just appears that he does "find" you and it generally begins with him inciting an argument that has little to do with the topic at hand, at least more than you do.
I have said my piece, I just hope the posters here would recognize the commonality we all share to try and make our country better, for all of us. Even if we disagree we all should share that, and we are engaged and truly care about what is happening.
Many out there don't care at all.
I'll accept all of your criticisms but this one. That statement is just plainly false.
You're implying that I dislike RightON because of his opinions? No, I dislike him because of his dishonesty, his hypocrisy, his ad hominem attacks, and most of all for his his serial race-baiting and his gay-baiting incident. If the arguments seem personal to you, that's because they are. Despite his attempt to hide behind a name change, Tommy/RightON is still accountable for his past statements. I can't and won't erase that history from mind every time I post a response to him.
It's not really personal, just trying to hold people to account who resort to the same BS day after day.Nit-picking, thread derailment, piles of logical fallacies. Most of the time I ignore them, but when nobody calls them out, they seem to get encouraged, and take up even more space here.
Westla may be completely sincere, but seems to overlook the start of this. RightOn/Tommy lurks around looking for some silly "gotcha", and I encourage others calling people on these things.
Of course, any reasonable person understands that "the bill" means existing versions in their present form, BrianCrooks posted a very well written comment, and the troll goes for a technical.
So you are holding Right On accountable for posts written by Tommy in the past? I know many believe they are one in the same, and I have seen Right On on several occasions say he doesn't care what name he is called, but I have never seen him acknowledge he is Tommy. So unless there is definitive proof then it's pure speculation, even if they do appear similar in their opinions and style.
Personally, I think it's unfair to hold someone else accountable for another poster's words unless there is proof they are the same poster. I know many think Tommy and Right On are the same, and maybe they are, but unless either acknowledges it then to saddle one with the other's opinions and past posts is unfair.
Appreciate your honest response.
If you're not Tommy, then just come out and say that you're not Tommy. We all know you won't.
What about that do you not understand? Look it up in the archives if it's so important to you.
Look it up in the archives? Um, okay. Why looky here, surprise, surprise. You danced around it when I first asked you the question too:
I hadn't posted in almost two years, and I have no recollection of a Right ON, yet right out the gate you're attacking me and race-baiting ("Face it, you hope [Sotomayor] does view her rulings through a racial prism, that is what you want"). Your response is neither an admission or a denial. Do you think we can't see through that?
Here's the whole thread. Except for the post where you tipped your hand and called me a tool (a favorite Tommy insult, btw). And no, I didn't flag it.
And you are a tool, glad more than one of us see it.
I'm sincerely baffled as to why you won't come out with either a denial or an admission. But it is entertaining to see you dance around it.
You keep parroting back my words as if that's some sort of "gotcha!" Did the "I'm rubber and you're glue" debate tactic work so well for you as a kid that you've just stuck with it throughout your whole life?
You are right there is no final bill but at the same time none of the points which the right is complaining about is in the discussion other than it the right not wanting it in the bill. Being right about it not being in the final bill is an engineer statement, factually accurate and of completely no use.
I think Clams was being helpful. You sure don't seem to be able to figure these things out for yourself.
- Michael Corleone
I can say without fear of contradiction that the last 8 years demonstrated it's easy to scare Americans.
The "Secretary" runs the whole thing. He is a political appointee.
Does a far right Secretary of HEW scare you?
Congress keeps its insurance but tells us this one's just as good. Does anyone believe that?
Starting in Y5, the Secretary defines prices and content of health insurance (HR3200). At that point, he can simply lower the price of
the public option and drive private insurance out of business. Why would he do this? If the costs have not been lowered, then it will be either expand the base of contributors or raise taxes to cover costs. The non-tax-raising, "I want to be reelected", choice would be to lower premium costs to drive private insurance out of business and pick up the new folks for their premium payments. HR3200 drives private insurance out of business -- it's difficult to argue otherwise.
There is also no assurance that 2 years from now, the first Health Care Amendment won't define the Health Care Normative Pricing Council (a.k.a. the Death Panel). The responsibility of this council will be to determine how much the government program will pay for medical procedures and when to pay. Do you want your government paying for expensive cancer treatments for a person who is 104 years old? How about 84? 79? -- There's going to be a year beyond with the Secretary says he cannot afford to pay for the best
medical help. When he does that, he has condemned that person to die. He took that person's money for 20, 40, or 60 years and now when he needs it, the Secretary says no. That, my friends is a Death Panel.
If you think people are angry now, when that first decsion is reached, the news will travel instantly and a lot of people are
going to be very upset.
Mixing Government and Health in America is a recipe for trouble.
We need to invent a solution to all the health care problems that does not have the government a major player. Government can regulate, but if individuals and families cannot see that they and only they will always be making the decisions, then trouble is in our future.
Many Americans right now are WAY too emotional to figure this out. It's My way or the Highway according to the One who thinks He can clean up the mess. When he starts representing all of the people and righties and lefties start thinking about how to solve all of the Health care problems without an enormouse government presence, our health care future will be brighter than any of those who went the government path.
Our time is now to make the leap over unsatisfactory solutions and innovate. Can we do it? I'm praying.
The US spends about $700 billion a year on "National Security." Exactly what are we securing if increasing numbers of our people are in poor health?
25% of male military volunteers were physically unfit for service due to obesity, and 40% of female volunteers. And those were the best of the best.
Why isn't Health Security more important? Perhaps more importantly, why isn't Health Security given any consideration?
If we cut our National Security spend from $700 to $600 billion, and shifted that $100 billion to Health Security - we could pay for HR3200. (I am going to ignore the reality that we had a $500 billion deficit in 2007, supposedly a good year.)
Healthcare in Europe, provided by governments, is quite advanced and in my experience more accessible to more people than in the US. I'm working with inventors and surgeons there in an attempt to bring to the US technologies 3-5 years in advance of US technologies. US patients are literally paying more and dying for lack of this technology.
If you can put up your bona fides rather than your fears, I'll gladly respond.
Operational details of US Medical business say when you walk in the door of a hospital, you are frequently offered two choices. Pay $1.00 now for full service or pay $2.00 sometime in the future for the same service. Many (most?) medical businesses have a 2 to 1 scale for pay now, pay later. Do you see that in Europe? [Rush Univ Med Ctr - Chicago].
Again, my point is in American where we have a long tradition of not trusting the government it makes no sense to me to hand the government life and death decisions. Imagine the recent Social Security issue where they deprived people of benefits and are now repaying $800 million to the denied beneficiaries. How does that work in Health Care? [I don't deny the same might happen with private insurance, but two factors mitigate: 1) many private insurance co's make the size of the problem very likely to be much smaller; 2) today there is appeal to state insurance commissioners].
There is no judicial review for the "Secretary's" decisions.
He can just tell his minions "If Senator Ted Kennedy asks for treatment, deny it." How do you deal with that. You can't sue the government.
As the current Secretary demonstrates (past Secretaries also) there are no special talents required to be Secretary of HEW. The appointee is just a political appointee.
Honestly, if this isn't playing with fire on a tank farm, I don't know what is. I think it is naivete in the extreme to believe that a Health Reform bill like HR3200 which produces almost no cost cuts, which grants the Secretary unlimited power without judicial review, which can trivially force all private insurance out of business within 5 years, which micromanages home visitation and doctor counciling [by withholding payments], which creates a bigger insurance company than any today is a very poor effort at curing our nations Health Care problems.
HR3200 is a bad law. Vote NO.
The government is recovering 2,744.4 million in bilking fees from several medical providers. More in the near future.
You can always petition your government for change.
The medical industry, as is, is sufficating this country's industry and people. It is unsupportable.
If we can't use the examples of country's who are sucessfully seeing to their citizens medical needs at half the cost, to create a comparable system, what does that say about our abilities.
We have an opportunity to raise the level of medical care performance. I'm afraid everyone is in such a hurry to do something, including the Congress and President that they simply don't understand why the
costs are high and are solving non-existent problems or problems that should be inflicted on people and private enterprise (e.g. it's YOUR choice to overeat; you MUST insure everyone).
Haste makes wastes and in this case the waste is going to be galactic in size.
Something beyond anecdotal evidence please.
Medicare was approved in less time than we've used on this iteration of healthcare reform.
If you'd make a little less haste and rewrite that second paragraph/sentance, I'd be grateful.
Waste? You mean like the 2,744.4 million that the government is recovering through the false claims act against several health organizations?
I've been reading HR 3200. I see quite a few Commissions set up to handle a wide range of specific areas. I don't see where the Secretary has carte blanche to set rules.
Congress has the power of the purse. Congress has the ability to raise/lower taxes and allocate those taxes to pay for military spending or healthcare spending and what are known as reimbursement rates.
My concern is that my (and your) healthcare insurer (sic) literally hides the decision making behind a facade. There is no transparency. Do you know who authored the rescission decision for your last procedure?
Do you want to cost cuts? You are going to get nothing if we do nothing. I don't see any bill from anyone opposed to HR3200 seeking methods to reduce costs, do you?
As to negotiating at the hospital, what are you talking about?
I have been self-insured several times in my life, typically when I'm in late phases of a startup when we're out of cash but close to funding. 2:1? I've negotiated LOWER RATE than the PPO rate by paying cash. The doctors are happy not to have to deal with the insurance company payment gobbledegook. Will his/her procedure be denied? When I wrote software we would see 600% resubmission rates for some GPs and Pediatrician. that is, the doc would provide service, but the insurer would dispute it 3-4-5-6-times in the hope the doc would give up and eat the cost. Usually the docs gave up rather than frustrate their billing staff. Hence the insurer "won."
As to insurers making the problem "smaller" you're looking at the wrong end of the telescope. If it's your health, it's not a small problem. But a macro view is that insurers are fleecing us of 20-25% of every healthcare dollar. The low number is that is $300 billion a year.
I see a giant oil field blazing already, and people close their eyes to it. Visualize Kuwait after start of first Gulf War in 1991. Yeah, it's that bad.