Fox News' partisans accuse Obama of "partisan hackery"
Responding to President Obama's September 9 speech to Congress on health care reform, in which Obama denounced "bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform," Sean Hannity, Karl Rove, and Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson Jr. asserted that the speech was, in Hannity's words, "full of partisan hackery." But Hannity, Rove, and Johnson have each repeatedly fearmongered or advanced false attacks while discussing health care reform, including the charges that reform would deny care for the elderly or that the administration is encouraging military veterans to end their lives.
Hannity: Obama's "attack speech" was "full of partisan hackery"
From the September 9 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
HANNITY: Now, tonight, the president did his best to sell Americans on the idea that the government should control their health care. And while trying to position himself as a neutral and fair arbiter of Capitol Hill's petty partisan disputes, he delivered an attack speech that could have been written by James Carville.
[...]
HANNITY: All right, but this president would never do that, right? Now, President Obama both lectures Americans and hypocritically attacks those who disagree with him. Hope and change gave way to cynicism and intimidation tonight, for this president lives in a world where only he tells the truth and everyone disagrees with him -- well, is either a liar or a thug.
OBAMA [video clip]: Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts but by prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Now, such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.
HANNITY: Oh, it's a lie? So when was the last time that a president of United States called a joint session of Congress to speak in prime time and deliver what amounts to be a campaign speech full of partisan hackery.
But Hannity himself has repeatedly advanced false attacks on health care reform
Hannity falsely claimed health bill doesn't have "any restrictions" on undocumented immigrants. Purporting to quote from a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, Hannity falsely claimed that the health care reform bill "does not contain any restrictions on non-citizens whether legally or illegally present" and that there is "proof that illegal immigrants could very well be covered by the Democrats' health care plan." In fact, the bills under consideration do prohibit undocumented immigrants from receiving subsidies to purchase health insurance. [Hannity, 8/26/09]
Hannity falsely claimed Obama accused "ObamaCare" opponents of "bearing false witness." Hannity misrepresented a statement that Obama made during a conference call with religious leaders, claiming that Obama "talked about those of us that oppose ObamaCare as, quote, 'bearing false witness.' " In fact, Obama was not calling out opponents of health insurance reform, but rather those who have misinformed about it, stating: "I know there's been a lot of misinformation in this debate, and there are some folks out there who are, frankly, bearing false witness, but I want everyone to know what health insurance reform is all about." [Hannity, 8/20/09]
Hannity asked: Is VA document "equivalent of a death panel?" Hannity said during an interview with Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele: "[A]pparently, they've got this document that they show veterans at all our VA hospitals, and they asked -- there's a section in which it says, have you ever heard anyone say, I'm a vegetable, pull the plug; I'm a severe burden financially on my family; I'm causing severe emotional damage to my family?" Hannity asked Steele if the manual is "the equivalent of a death panel," and Steele replied that "in my view, it very well could be." [Hannity, 8/20/09]
Hannity falsely claimed businesses would be "punished" if they "don't go for the public option." Hannity falsely claimed that if small businesses "don't go for the public option" under a House health care reform bill, "they're going to be punished." In fact, the penalty on small business would apply to businesses that don't provide health care, not specifically on those that "don't go for the public option." [Hannity, 8/18/09]
Hannity falsely claimed bill establishes a "bureaucrat" to offer "end-of-life advice." Hannity claimed that end-of-life provisions in the bill would establish "a bureaucrat that is designated to save money talking to an elderly person and offering them end-of-life advice." In fact, the end-of-life provisions would reimburse physicians -- not "a bureaucrat" -- for voluntary counseling sessions. [Hannity, 8/18/09]
Rove: Obama advanced "a series of very glaring misstatements or distortions" during "gratuitously and bitterly partisan" speech
From the September 9 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
ROVE: This was not an exceptionally good speech. It was gratuitously and bitterly partisan. But I think the biggest problem was the section in which he talked about the so-called lies and misstatements about his proposal. He dealt with five of them, and in each one of them he made a series of very glaring misstatements or distortions.
Rove has previously advanced false attacks on health care reform
Contradicting CBO, Rove suggested "most companies" will "dump the coverage" under House bill. Rove stated that the House health care reform bill "says if you're a business you can either continue to provide health care to your employees or you can pay a fine equal to 8 percent of your payroll costs. Well, for most companies, what they're now paying for health insurance is in excess of 8 percent of their payroll costs." But according to the Congressional Budget Office, net employer coverage will increase under the House bill and only "about 3 million people" who would otherwise be covered under employer plans "would not have an offer of coverage under" HR 3200. [The O'Reilly Factor, 9/9/09]
Rove falsely claimed Obama administration is pushing veterans toward "assisted suicide." Rove claimed that the Veterans Health Administration is directing veterans to an end-of-life educational booklet, "Your Life, Your Choices," that includes contact information for "a group that believes in assisted suicide," and thus "the kind of guidance we're giving returning veterans" is "you ought to go to an assisted suicide group." In fact, that group is not referenced in the current version of the document, a fact that Jim Towey -- who originated the smear of the booklet as a "death book" -- acknowledged in an interview on Fox News Sunday. [Hannity, 8/24/09]
Rove distorted Obama statement to suggest he is considering a "health care system like the European countries." Rove wrote that, in 2008, the Obama campaign "ran ads attacking 'government-run health care' as 'extreme.' Now Mr. Obama is asking, as he did at a townhall meeting last month, 'Why not do a universal health care system like the European countries?' Maybe because he was elected by intimating that would be 'extreme'?" In fact, in the town hall remarks Rove quoted, Obama was paraphrasing the question he had just been asked -- "Why can we not have a universal health care system, like many European countries, where people are treated based on needs rather than financial resources?" -- before explaining why he opposed such a system. [Wall Street Journal, 4/30/09]
Peter Johnson Jr.: Speech was "partisan spectacle" with "scary" level of "anger and bitterness and outrage"
From the September 9 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
HANNITY: First of all, I want to say from the outset, the president sounds like he's talking out of both sides of his mouth. He gives a very partisan speech in Cincinnati, very partisan speech tonight.
You know, and by the way, they're going after you if you don't agree, you know, if you don't have the facts as he sees them. He rejects every reform the Republicans offer, and, you know, attacks Bush, attacks talk radio, attacks cable.
JOHNSON: Well, you know, he promised in the speech to replace acrimony with civility. And I was waiting for four words: "I hear you, America. I hear the town halls." I didn't hear those words, "I hear you America."
Instead we got a partisan spectacle, scare tactics, bickering, games, distortion, misinformation, demagoguery, lies, scary tactics, all attributed to town hall people and Republicans in this country.
HANNITY: And he said, "I will call you out. We will call you out." Is that the Chicago threat?
JOHNSON: So I was expecting a speech in which there was moral suasion. Instead there was a level of anger and bitterness and outrage --
HANNITY: I thought so, too.
JOHNSON: -- that was in some sense scary.
Johnson has previously fearmongered about health care reform
Johnson claimed health care reform is "the government deciding who will live, who will die." Responding to a video in which Obama discussed reducing costs by providing information to doctors and patients about which treatments aren't "necessarily going to improve care," Johnson stated: "President as social engineer. President as bioethicist. The government deciding who will live, who will die. You're too old. You're too young. ... Is that what this plan is about? To save money by killing old people? That's frightening. It's absolutely frightening." [Fox & Friends, 6/25/09]
Johnson compared end-of-life counseling to "Brave New World, Solent Green, 1984." Johnson stated that "advance care planning consultation is kind of our 2009 Brave New World, Soylent Green, 1984, Aldous Huxley kind of world." [Fox & Friends, 7/28/09]
To quote Frank Burns: Do you have any papers to prove that these are your papers?
So if I am an American citizen I have to prove it and just who would I have to prove it to? Do you want to set up another government office to make sure that only citizens get healthcare? What about the illegals working in the fields and they get hurt - do you want hospitals to check them for citizenship before they stop the bleeding? Do you want hospitals to turn away seriously ill children just because they can't prove they are citizens? Do you want sick people running around infected those around them because they aren't allowed medical attention?
Or do you just want to get rid of all the illegal undocumented workers because you think that they are not worthy of human dignity?
Immigration reform is needed in this country but don't try and muddy the waters of healthcare reform just because you are afraid that someone who is not an American citizen might benefit from it.
It's not that they are not worthy of human dignity, it's that they are breaking laws by being here illegally, hense the the word "illegal". There needs to be a level of personable responsibility. Do you question the officer when he pulls you over for speeding? You were clearly breaking a traffic law, so you will pay the fine.
I agree, that we need to focus more on the actual reform aspect of healthcare, but the fact remains that we're talking about allocation of tax dollars. Americans should not let their taxes go towards supporting illegal immagrants, no matter the situation.
But more importantly for this discussion, what Obama said was not a lie, and the rude Congressman from Carolina was 100% wrong in calling it a lie.
And yes, it would be beneficial for illegals to purchase independet insurance.
The rude Congressman is not important to this conversation at all. That man made a blatant mistake and will recieve his due punishment.
They would not be subsidized for their health insurance, but there would still be a mandate for them to always have the insurance. I would think that conservatives would be happy with a mandate for alien residents. Can they just not process information anymore?
And the guy who has beers at my neighborhood bar, whose mother snuck across the border with him when he was five, I don't consider him a lawbreaker. I mean, he was five. He grew up here, graduated from high school, got some vocational certificate from city college, and has managed the kitchen in several good restaurants.
I don't want him deported. He works hard, he pays taxes under a phony social security number and the government has no problem taking his money, he doesn't ask anything from this country except to work hard and get a modest paycheck. I'm grateful that he's contributing to my country. I've had beers at his house, he's had beers at my house, and that's the great thing about America: we are very different, but we can still be friends and work together here in the greatest democracy on the planet.
Why do so many of my fellow Americans reject the picture of this as a nation of immigrants, some generations ago, some very recent. Our diversity is our strength!
Because your party destroyed the world, you aren't going to have a say in anything we do ever again.
If you're an "independent" who just happens to vote for republicans again and again, then you're a republican.
If you're a conservative who knew better than to vote for Bush in 2000 and 2004, you're part of an extremely small segment of the population.
Please spare us your false patriotism.
"Do you question the officer when he pulls you over for speeding? You were clearly breaking a traffic law, so you will pay the fine."
What if you were not speeding? Still you were clearly breaking the law? What do you do then?
False Patriotism? Please explain to me that statement.
Exactly how does a sick two year old earn this level of personal responsibility when screaming in pain in an emergency room?
Second, citizenship should not be a requirement for receiving health care. You should refer to taxes if you want to make an argument about restricting access to those who contribute - the fact that I pay taxes in Austria makes me feel good about using the Austrian healthcare system (as does the quality of care). I am an American expat, not an Austrian citizen. Citizenship has nothing to do with whether or not you pay taxes. (Undocumented immigrants working in factories pay taxes without enjoying the benefits of the services they pay for - they don't want to get caught, so they pay in without claiming their earned benefits.)
However, health care is a human right. The H1N1 virus doesn't care where its hosts are from (or where they're living), just as most automobile drivers don't select their accident victims based on ethnicity. Restricting health care to those who pay into the system fails to reduce the costs we bear when those not covered need care.
Restricting coverage to citizens would exclude people who pay into the system - that's not fair either. Universal coverage is the best way to limit health care costs, just as public water utilities provide the best way to limit the costs of distributing healthy water.
Where does it begin and where does it ultimately end? Please let's hear the "Real American" tell us godless lib-ruls what the best idea is...maybe we could call it a "Final Solution"?
SEC. 242. AFFORDABLE CREDIT ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL.
(a) DEFINITION. --
(1) IN GENERAL. -- For purposes of this division, the term ''affordable credit eligible individual'' means, subject to subsection (b), an individual who is lawfully present in a State in the United States (other than as a nonimmigrant described in a subparagraph (excluding subparagraphs (K), (T), (U), and (V)) of section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act) --
[...]
SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.
Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
The bill does say that the Fed will not pay for health care for illegal aliens. Here is an idea! Since service really can not be refused. Anyone that is suspect without Valid legal Identity must produce some proof of residency. With all the high tech cameras and equipment around, It should not be hard to put together a data base of those requiring medical services. By flagging those that have not paid, or used fake IDs. Then attempt to bill the country that they come from. I assure you that their country will not be as easy on them as the USA. If nothing else it may stop that individual from seeking free medical the next time.
First, there is no "Obama's bill." The White House didn't write any bill, Congress was left to its own devices, and came up with 5 different bills.
Second, the President has endorsed provisions that explicitly (that means *totally*, dude) prevent any illegal immigrant from getting benefits.
Third, everything on the table is health care INSURANCE reform. Let me say it again, since you seem to be slow: INSURANCE. So, you're worried that some illegal immigrant will use his or her own money to buy insurance? What, and get covered even with a pre-existing condition? Because that is the kind of change we're talking about.
Oh, wait, let me guess: you have not the slightest clue what the President has and hasn't done, or what specifically is being proposed. You just don't like illegal immigrants, and health care is on the table, and somebody (doesn't matter who) put the idea in your head that illegals would be covered...well, heck, now you have something to complain about. Dang!
Don't spend time learning the actual facts, about what the President wants, about the actual proposals, about pesky facts. no need, you've picked a side, and you're on it, and if you only listen for stuff that supports your side, well then its easy.
I listen to both sides, hence, why I am here. I'm obviously conservative. I guess that makes me the devil right?
Especially if your a republican after the last 8 years.
And you guys argue that Obama is fascist? Maybe I misunderstand your critique of Obama. Do you not think he is fascist enough? Is that it?
And..... anyone expected differently?
Fox Noise is as useful to the public discourse as a blocked artery is for good heart health!!
As for the speech, I'd rather a simple expansion of Medicare For All with a few fixes! But Obama's proposal will do fine... for now.
What a bunch of Hypocrites the GOP are.
In one breath, Medicare is wasteful bloated gov't.
In another, it's great and should not be touched.
Pathetic.
Did Roger Ailes change his mind?
Which channel is that?
For a second there I thought you were being serious... but then I realized that you must be showing your humorous side!
Awe... did I strike a cord?
At no point did I claim a partisan stance by saying or declaring that MSNBC or CNN was specifically news either. I do however happen to enjoy watching Olbermann and Maddow... but I won't defend them as I don't really need too.
With that said... perhaps you would be so kind as to provide proof that Fox is a news channel then?
Just today, I've had two situations, one at this site and another at Facebook, where I pointed out a lie or factual error by right wingers. Their responses to me were almost identical: "You put down people just because they disagree with you!".
The far right has been conditioned to believe that their imaginary events and objectively false statements deserve every bit of respect that honest and factual things are given.
This is why a member of congress, when having the president explain that something is a lie, feels he has not only the right, but the obligation, to scream out "You lie!!!". The right doesn't believe that anything they say is a lie, no matter how obvious the lie is. It's just a different opinion. The only lies, to them, are calling the lies out as lies.
I know you are, but what am I?
How brain damaged does one have to be for this to make any sense at all?!
Follow this:
1) YOU lie.
2) I call a press conference / session of congress / etc... to refute you, becuase everyone heard your LIE and a lot of morons apparently believed it.
3) But becuase I did this to refute your lie...
4) That means you you didn't lie.
Anyone who can swallow that tripe ought to be harvested for donor organs... and their BRAINS can just be donated for research, since they obviously AREN'T USING THEM at the moment.
If they had any real argument to use they would have been done so by now. They already tried to use the it would cost to much .But that old GOP mantra has very hollow ring to it
when you are so willing to give the war effort a blank check and never question thecost .Yet they are so unwilling to show this same generosity with purse strings and cost with any domestic issue that will affect real Americans in real time .
What was not a lie is the need to dispell untruths by calling them what they are, "A Lie". The liars were abhored as I am sure the President was with the recent behavior and unspoken correction from the GOP. It is reflective of unchecked behavior in the lifestyle, the attitude, and the financial and trade policies under the Republican Rule. When have there been the most wars? Under Democratic or Republican Rule? This should say something about behavior, attitude, conflict resolution, ethnic and race relations, as well as supremacy issues. A Quote: "In Europe and America,
there's a growing feeling of hysteria,
Conditioned to respond to all the threats,
In the rhetorical speeches of the Soviets,
Mr. Kruschov(?)(Bush) says he will protect you,
I don't subscribe to his point of view"
Believe me when I say to you,
I hope Republicans love their children too.
"There is no historical precident,
to put the words in the mouth of the President.
There's no such thing as a winable war,
A lie we don't believe anymore............."
There is no winable war in the division that we see in Congress right now. War at home will make us pentrateable and vulnerable to attacks abroad.
I hope that these Congressmen and women love their children enough to graduate them from hatred, ideology of supremacy, and involve themselves in excellence shared by many and diverse cultures. Not to advance barbarianism as a way of solving conflict but to settle difference in an exchange of and declaration of achievements to determine the winner. With that will be intelligence and character. latanza
A new race, that cannot lie, nor dictate, that will include a diverse number of possibilities: "Achievers and Advancers"
Really what has Nazism to do with American healthcare??
People who believe in "death panels" will not suddenly wake up and realize they do not exist. People have faith in these claims, and like religion, require no evidence to support their beliefs. Michael Steele said it best, when discussing the VA document. It may not be a death panel (because there is none), so his mind rationalizes the VA document as a substitute for the traditional view of what a death panel may be. For those who want to believe in a death panel, they will find some wording within the legislation, or if they cannot find it there, they will seek alternative sources until that void is filled.
One of the wingnut trolls was posting here recently with the anti-health care reform talking point of the day, the danger of illegal immigrants using the system. He asserted that they would be covered, and evidence was shown to him that he was wrong.
He then adjusted his argument, saying that there were "loopholes", that non-citizens could find ways to break the rules and receive medical services.
That is, he was opposed to legislation because he thought some people might break the law.It was almost surreal, and made me wonder what the poster thought was the purpose of laws, if not to address things that people might want to do if there were no laws.
This is SUPPOSE to be the part where you read the section of the House bill that contradicts President Obama's claims.
Of course you can't do that because President Obama is speaking the truth.
The president still was extending the olive branch ..he just made it clear that its the last one!!!
Just for extra measure Mark Levin and his radio show is GONE as well, but he is funny to listen to sometimes.
these ego/money driven fox mugs are scared because their lies are at stake here. repubs have always pointed out that fear = defeat. well there you go
well, if anybody would know...*shot*
Part of me wishes these guys would be dumped on the Great Wall of China like in that one episode of The Drew Carey Show. THEN maybe they'd know what socialism and Communism are all about, and appreciate us Progressives more.
Answer: January 28, 2008. Or if you want to say "but he was required." February 27, 2001.
the "LIE" statement about illegal immigrants..What the prez said was the will not be covered under the bill, NOT if they would be refused service or care..
Death Panels.."They"(non-conservative radio) have been interviewing persons from various insurance companies who have worked on them already to deny coverage to hold down the bottom line..Let's get organized! but the information of the bill where it is, not ping ponging form what they said..you have a great idea here, use it!!
What they said..what are the exact facts..put it out there and go big with it..put up or shut attitude..bring them out..as the President said.."We will call you out!"
Now, THAT is an excellent example of partisan hackery, Stark. Nice job being the example of what NOT to be.