Media seek to impugn both sides for ugliness in health care debate
In commenting on the tenor of the debate surrounding health care reform, several media figures have suggested that its supporters and opponents are equally detracting from the "seriousness" of the issue or that its supporters are failing to take seriously the critics of health care reform. These media figures have either ignored the false and extreme rhetoric coming from opponents of health care reform or have backed their claims with questionable assertions, such as referring to labor unions as "fringe groups."
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.
Media strive to cast pox on both houses
Murphy claims Barney Frank failed to give "serious" answers on the deficit. On the August 19 edition of CNN Newsroom, Patricia Murphy, editor of CitizenJanePolitics.com, responded to a clip of Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) answering questions at an August 18 town hall meeting, saying that she understood why Frank "wrote off" the concerns of a woman comparing health care reform to Nazism, but that Frank should have given "a more serious answer" to a man asking about the rising budget deficit. Frank, however, had answered the man's deficit question by saying that "the biggest single waste of money in one fell swoop in federal history was the war in Iraq. ... You said you're worried about the deficit. Then you said you weren't talking about the war. Who do you think paid for the war? Santa Claus? The deficit was exacerbated by the war." Murphy offered no elaboration as to how citing the costs of the Iraq war did not qualify as a "serious answer" to a question about the deficit.
Yellin put labor unions and tea partiers on the same "fringe." On the August 13 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, national political correspondent Jessica Yellin noted that many of the more vocal participants at health care town halls were "encouraged to attend by groups on the left or the right" and listed among these groups MoveOn.org, "labor unions," Americans for Prosperity, and Tea Party Patriots. Yelling went on to ask: "Are fringe groups taking over the town square, and is this good for our country?"
Rehm equated Pelosi with Palin. On the August 12 broadcast of her NPR program, Diane Rehm said she can't call the national discussion about health care reform a "debate" because "people are so angry, and they're using phrases and they're using loud hollering, screaming trying to drown out the opposition." The examples Rehm offered were "Sarah Palin's comments about [President] Obama's death panel and Nancy Pelosi calling health care critics un-American." This was actually a distortion of Pelosi's August 10 USA Today op-ed, in which she and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) decried efforts to "disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue," writing: "Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American."
Scarborough insisted the "uncontrolled rage" is bipartisan. On the August 20 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, co-host Joe Scarborough repeatedly insisted that Democrats and Republicans both bear responsibility for the "uncontrolled rage" surrounding the health care debate, to the point that when his guests and co-hosts attempted to talk about the responsibility Republican leaders bear, Scarborough would cut them off and demand that they "talk about Democrats."
From the August 20 edition of Morning Joe:
SCARBOROUGH: I'm just saying, there's all of this uncontrolled rage out there. I think leaders of both parties have to be called on the carpet and distance themselves from the crazy rhetoric that's out there, whether it's coming from Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid calling Americans evil --
MIKA BRZEZINSKI (co-host): Yeah.
SCARBOROUGH: -- or [Rep. Jerrold] Nadler [D-NY] talking about Nazi, fascist tactics or Tom DeLay being a birther or Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin talking about death panels, which clearly -- clearly, clearly, clearly -- is not in this legislation.
BRZEZINSKI: Exactly.
SCARBOROUGH: And so let's get leaders of the Republican Party and Democratic Party showing whether they're true leaders or whether they're going to play to their angriest base.
BRZEZINSKI: All right. Here with us now, editorial writer for The Washington Post and MSNBC contributor Jonathan Capehart. Jonathan, you want to chime in? Any excuse for this?
CAPEHART: I am just -- I'm astounded by that Tom DeLay sound bite. Good Lord. And you know, Joe, I'm sorry, but your one defense of the Republican Party, I think it -- ooh, it's a little lame. These people used to be the leaders in the Republican Party. Newt Gingrich was the speaker of the House. Tom DeLay was in the House leadership. He got the nickname "The Hammer" for a reason. And Sarah Palin was the VP nominee, former governor of Alaska, up until a few -- about a month ago.
SCARBOROUGH: And, Jonathan --
CAPEHART: And so what does it about -- but wait. What does it say that these folks were elected? I mean --
SCARBOROUGH: OK.
CAPEHART: -- these were people that people voted for.
SCARBOROUGH: OK.
CAPEHART: They were leaders in the party.
SCARBOROUGH: And so -- thank you, Jonathan, for bringing this up.
CAPEHART: That's just one half. The second half, I agree with you.
SCARBOROUGH: Hold -- no, no, hold a second, Jonathan. Because I want to pick apart what you just said. You're right -- Newt Gingrich was speaker of the House. Tom DeLay was majority leader or whip. Sarah Palin was vice president. Harry Reid is --
CAPEHART: Nominee.
SCARBOROUGH: -- is the leader of the United States Senate, and he's calling Americans evil. Is. He's calling Americans evil. Nancy Pelosi is speaker of the House, and she's saying that these people that are going to town hall meetings are using un-American tactics. Jerry Nadler is a --
CAPEHART: Shouting down people at town hall meetings --
SCARBOROUGH: -- a Democratic leader right now --
JOHN RIDLEY (MSNBC contributor): There's a difference between saying --
SCARBOROUGH: -- talking about fascist tactics. So, you actually have people who are running America calling other Americans, quote, "evil." So --
CAPEHART: Well, I just wonder what it says about --
SCARBOROUGH: -- don't tell me that my explanation is lame.
CAPEHART: No, I just wonder what it says that these people had once been elected. Now, the second half of what you said, I completely agree with. Where are the responsible leaders of the Republican Party now --
SCARBOROUGH: Wait a second, Jonathan.
CAPEHART: -- trying to stop the --
SCARBOROUGH: No, no, no.
CAPEHART: Wait, wait --
SCARBOROUGH: Don't -- don't -- no, Jonathan. Don't keep this --
CAPEHART: Trying to stop the conversation about birthers and --
SCARBOROUGH: Jonathan --
CAPEHART: What?
SCARBOROUGH: -- please, don't try to weasel out of this. Don't just talk about --
CAPEHART: I haven't even --
SCARBOROUGH: -- Republicans.
CAPEHART: I haven't even finished.
SCARBOROUGH: Talk about Democrats.
CAPEHART: I didn't get to the Democrats yet.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, no, because you want to go --
CAPEHART: I didn't get to the Democrats yet, Joe.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, why don't you do that now, because you've already talked about the Republicans. Instead of talking about Republicans calling people out --
CAPEHART: Well, look. Look, I think that the Repub--
SCARBOROUGH: -- why don't you answer my question? Do you think Harry Reid's right? Do you think Americans are evil-mongers?
Fox News ignores Nazi rhetoric from protester to attack Democrats
Doocy, Kilmeade defended protester who compared Obama to Hitler against Frank's "rude" response. Frank also fielded a question at the August 18 town hall meeting from a woman who claimed he and Obama support a "Nazi policy" on health care and who held up a sign of Obama with a Hitler mustache. Frank told the woman: "When you ask me that question, I am going to revert to my ethnic heritage and answer your question with a question: On what planet do you spend most of your time?" Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy, however, has repeatedly defended the woman, claiming that Frank's response to her was "rude," out of touch, and laden with "attitude." Doocy never noted the content of the woman's question. Fox News' Brian Kilmeade described Frank's behavior as "arrogance" and "smugness," and asked why Frank couldn't have said to the woman, "I understand where you're coming from, but ... "















But wait Joe, before you go on your long, long, long, long way of explaining why blame should be shared by Democrats watch on MSNBC these people: Dylan, Carlos, David & Tamara, Chris, Ed, Keith, and Rachel. Just saying. Wink, wink. LOL
Rush is out there, spewing his venom every day. No regard to the facts, just whatever he can find on planet Uranus. People argue his listener numbers but if he is making the obscene amount of money he is (heil free market) there ought to be a lot of listeners influenced by him and his venom. And it shows, even on this conservative misinformation disseminating web site, when people that can actually type, type in his talking points.
Oh Smarshall, just acting like Mika. Sorry ;-)
Hey when did Pelosi or Reid call Americans evil, btw? Somehow, I bet that never happened. But I haven't been keeping up with the news. ;-/
"Double standard" is one of those terms that wingnuts seem to have a really tough time with. A double standard is when somebody judges two comparable things unfairly because of bias or prejudices.
A double standard is not being able to see the difference between two very different things.
Paying more for Filet Mignon than for Baloney is not a double standard.
Having different reactions to a "Walk to Cure Cancer" charity event and a KKK March is not a double standard.
In order to show a real double standard here, one would need to show some past issue where liberals, instructed by well-paid corporate interests, were stuffed full of misinformation, and went to GOP town hall meetings with the sole purpose of preventing any discussion of real issues by screaming out this propaganda.
"Double standard" is a very useful term, when used correctly. PLease stop abusing it.
BTW - No one believes you understood more of the bill than her staff did. You don't even understand what a townhall is!
Anyone who says they have read and understand the entire bill should then go on to the next one. And then the next one and give classes on the entire array of bills. BS at its finest.
Homer: Marge, it takes two to lie - one to lie, and one to listen.
Protests of a lack of voice on important issues is an entirely differant thing.
David Brock's, "Blinded by the Right." Does give some examples of what you say, ie shouting down conservatives. On a college campus somewhen in the seventies. This disposed him towards the conservative positions. There are parts missing, The organizing monied parties, provided rhetoric and transport.
Back up your statements, repeat your lies, or maybe come to understand the people who turn your anger on and off like a wall switch.
Want a great laugh? View the following to watch how politicians deal with each other...
Dope slap...Korean National Assembly...Barney Frank Chairs a Meeting...Bolivian Parliament...Canadian Senate...
You have no trust of the interested people showing up being able to spot lies then?
The proper response to this scripting, lies and proported inability of the populus to discriminate this then is to disallow any discussion? Really?
But the thinking person's rage is directed at the currenlty system, for unecessarily killing 18,000 people a year, bankrupting countless more and cancelling policy's right when they're needed the most, so that Insurance CEO's can get paid 10, 15, 25 Million dollars a year.
The idiot's rage is directed at shullbit, distortions and outright lies: Socialism, Nazism, Death Panels, Rationing, Government taking over Medicare(!!!)...
Now I've been taken to task recently for stereotyping lib's as smart and con's as dumb, but... Who do YOU THINK the above paragraphs describe?
The are only two types of conservtaives: Evil and Stupid. One lies and one buys.
Many thousands of uninsured people die from drug abuse, aids, genetic makeup, and unhealthy lifestyles. Having government insurance will not necessarily prevent many of those people from from dying.
The other part is the cost of insuring. Do you think you should pay for those who contract std's and aids through unprotected sex? How about those who take narcotic drugs? What about those who eat too much and develop diabetes or smoke and get cancer?
I am of the opinion that your hyperbole at the end of your rant adds to the ugliness that is the subject of this topic. It belies an unwillingness to be open minded toward those with whom you disagree when you disparage them in that manner. Do you think that is the case?
And then, think for a moment, that maybe, just maybe medicare is unfunded. And maybe, just maybe, that medicare is costly because it insures OLD PEOPLE!!
And then think, just for a moment, how much more medical care old people need as compared to younger people.
And...your hatred of anything run by the government is a right-wing canard. Fires get put out, criminals get arrested, and roads get fixed. In case you missed it, government is YOU. Why do you hate your fellow Americans so much?
Your response doesn't make any sense. I can see you are not up to a serious discussion.
But you're too busy searching wingnut websites for your next cut-and-paste parade.
If not, then why do you support such Nazi legislation?
There it is folks. Unrequited love of insurance companies.
Hey joe - you know where most of the savings are gonna come from? From not paying 30 cents of every dollar of premiums to subsidize CEO salaries and HMO profits.
I'll ask Rep. Weiner's questions yet again - what do insurance companies bring to the table in regards to patient care?
BTW, FAILLIB, I missed it the first time, but somebody linked to the thread where you used the phony Paris Business Review site as a defense of BilldO Reilly.
Outstanding FAIL !
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande
It's a very good piece out of the New Yorker magazine that outlines some true problems with the high cost of healthcare. Something none of the current legislation addresses.