Tag Archives: clinton

Tax Cut All-Star — CNBC’s Trish Regan: Calls It ‘Inherently Un-American’ to Penalize Prosperity

Throughout the last half-century, time and time again, a means to stimulate an ailing economy has occurred through tax cuts. Former Presidents John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have proven economic relief is most effective through tax cuts – not government spending.  Still that method has detractors. However, CNBC “The Call” co-anchor Trish Regan, with a panel decidedly against her, made the case for tax cuts. On NBC’s July 11 broadcast of “The Chris Matthews Show,” Regan explained how tax cuts encourage businesses to help reverse the trend of high unemployment and that businessmen are worried about the end of the Bush tax cuts. “They absolutely are,” Regan said. “They’re concerned about it and this is one of the issues when it comes to hiring. They’re hesitant right now when it comes to bringing more employees on board because one, you’re not seeing final demand because consumers aren’t spending that much, and number two, they’re dealing with the tax consequences of having more people in their companies. So that’s definitely an issue.” Matthews followed up Regan’s response with a question to Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page. He asked would if “Democratic progressives” would be open to the idea of tax cuts, if it meant rescuing the economy and solidifying President Barack Obama’s chances for re-election in 2012. “Well, only if it hit those at the bottom,” Page said. “You should expand the earned income tax credit or give some kind of a job incentive. But I disagree that he ought to call off, well continue the Bush tax cut. That’s not going to win Democrat support.” However, as the Congressional Budget Office shows , upper-income taxpayers pay more than their fair share of taxes, over six times as much in terms of a percentage of household income overall. And Regan as explained, penalization through taxation is “inherently un-American” because it discourages aspiration. “Isn’t there something kind of inherently un-American about the more money you make, the more money we’re going to take from you?” Regan said. “I mean, even if you’re not making $250,000 a year as a couple, you may aspire to make that. The government’s going to take more.” Probably at this point, Matthews may have been wondering how someone with these views wound up booked on his shows. Regan’s remarks drew laughter and protest from “The Chris Matthews Show” panel. Nonetheless, Time magazine’s Joe Klein offered up his pro-taxation view – suggesting all conservatives want to abolish the income tax, which he deemed as “radical.” “It’s called the progressive income tax for a reason,” Klein said. “Now conservatives want to abolish the income tax. That is so radical.” But Regan fought back, explaining taxation discourages productivity which is essential to economic growth. “What I’m saying is, you don’t want to necessarily discourage productivity,” she said. “You want the country to grow and there are ways to do that through tax cuts whether it be through individuals or to businesses.” Klein attempted to use former President Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax hike as evidence higher taxes don’t necessarily discourage economic growth. And although there is significant evidence to dispute Klein’s point , Regan explained the economy was in a different place then as it is now. “He did it at a time when the economy was growing,” she said. “We’re in a very different situation right now.” Take away: Good thing Regan is anchoring a CNBC show and Klein is writing a column for a magazine with a dwindling circulation.

View post:
Tax Cut All-Star — CNBC’s Trish Regan: Calls It ‘Inherently Un-American’ to Penalize Prosperity

Evening Newscasts Downplay or Ignore Obama Appointee Berwick’s Pro-Socialized Medicine Views, Implications for Elderly Patients

President Obama’s recess appointment of Dr. Donald Berwick – a controversial advocate of socialized medicine and of the rationing of health care, particularly for the elderly – as head of the Medicare program – (a decision criticized even by some Democrats) – has so far received no attention on ABC’s World News or the CBS Evening News, while the NBC Nightly News devoted only 38 seconds to the President’s controversial move on Thursday’s show, barely touching on the nature of Berwick’s beliefs and their possible implications for the elderly. CNN’s The Situation Room devoted a full story to the appointment on Wednesday, but did little better in informing viewers of Berwick’s beliefs. By contrast, FNC’s Special Report with Bret Baier on Wednesday relayed to viewers that Berwick has not only advocated the type of socialized medicine that currently limits access to health care in Britain – favoring a non-free market system based on wealth redistribution – but he has also spoken in favor of further limiting access to some health care procedures for the elderly. FNC correspondent Jim Angle quoted Berwick as contending that “Any health care funding plan that is just equitable, civilized and humane, must, must redistribute wealth.” The FNC correspondent further filled in viewers: And then there are the end-of-life issues of particular interest for Medicare recipients. Berwick laments the amount of money spent on people in their final week of life and said that at some point additional treatments are “so expensive that our taxpayers have better use for those funds. We make those decisions all the time. The decision is not whether or not we will ration care. The decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.” Angle also touched on Berwick’s admiration for Britain’s infamous national health care system: JIM ANGLE: Berwick also praises one of the world’s most famous examples of socialized medicine. SENATOR JOHN BARRASSO (R-WY): He said he’s in love with the British health care system, which is known for rationing health care. On the NBC Nightly News Thursday anchor Brian Williams devoted 38 seconds to the topic and noted that “One top Democrat called the recess appointment ‘troubling,’” but barely touched on Berwick’s beliefs as Williams briefly relayed that “Berwick has spoken about the need to ration medical care to control costs.” On Wednesday’s The Situation Room on CNN, anchor Wolf Blitzer introduced his show’s report noting that “Republicans and even a few Democrats are upset about this.” Like NBC’s Williams, CNN correspondent Dan only barely touched on Berwick’s support for “rationing” wihtout delving into its implications for the availability of health care, especially for the elderly: “Some Republicans pointing to him saying that the reason that they don’t like him is because of comments that he has made in the past that they believe suggest that he’s an advocate for rationed health care.” Below are transcripts of the relevant portions of the Wednesday, July 7, Special Report with Bret Baier on FNC, the same day’s The Situation Room on CNN, and the Thursday, July 8, NBC Nightly News : #From the July 7 Special Report with Bret Baier on FNC: SHANNON BREAM: Good evening. I’m Shannon Bream in tonight for Bret Baier. There is outrage in some quarters tonight because of President Obama’s use of a recess appointment to install his controversial pick to run Medicare and Medicaid. Chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle tells us why the reaction to Dr. Donald Berwick is so emotional. JIM ANGLE: Donald Berwick will run the largest insurance program in the country because Medicare and Medicaid cover 100 million Americans and spend some $800 billion. But Berwick has said some things that are definitely not part of the administration’s pitch on health care . “Any health care funding plan that is just equitable, civilized and humane,” he said, “must, must redistribute wealth.” Republicans suspect President Obama didn’t want a confirmation hearing where such statements were bound to come up and think that’s why the President waited 17 months to nominate anyone. SENATOR JOHN BARRASSO (R-WY): He didn’t want somebody to have to answer questions of members of Congress during the whole debate on health care this year. DAVID WINSTON, REPUBLICAN POLLSTER: And his entire testimony is going to reinforce all the negative aspects of the bill. And that’s why they didn’t want him up there. They just pulled the plug on the hearings. ANGLE: And then there are the end-of-life issues of particular interest for Medicare recipients. Berwick laments the amount of money spent on people in their final week of life and said that at some point additional treatments are “so expensive that our taxpayers have better use for those funds. We make those decisions all the time. The decision is not whether or not we will ration care. The decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.” Some elderly do prepare advanced directives should they become incapacitated, but critics say Berwick seemed to be saying something else. WINSTON: He made it kind of sound like those decisions would be made by government bureaucrats and not the individuals. ANGLE: And any talk of rationing care has enormous political implications. WINSTON: What American people hear is this. Those people who have health care give up some of it to those people who don’t. And so the quality of their health care is going to get worse. ANGLE: Berwick also praises one of the world’s most famous examples of socialized medicine. BARRASSO: He said he’s in love with the British health care system, which is known for rationing health care. ANGLE: The White House argues Berwick is just one of 189 nominees waiting for confirmation. ROBERT GIBBS: The President is going to install people that need to be installed for this government to run effective and efficiently. ANGLE: And Gibbs notes that two Republicans who once held the same post have more positive views. GIBBS: The last two people who have run CMS for the Bush administration both strongly supported Dr. Berwick’s appointment. ANGLE: Recess appointments have been used with frequency by presidents of both parties. President Clinton made 139. President George W. Bush 171. President Obama has made 18 so far. Dr. Berwick will now hold his position until the end of 2011, but if he wants to stay, he’ll still have to face Senate confirmation. #From the July 7 The Situation Room on CNN: WOLF BLITZER: The White House is defending the President’s decision to sidestep Congress to install his choice to oversee the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Republicans and even a few Democrats are upset about this. Republicans, I should say, are fuming. Even the top Democrat, though, says he is troubled by the move. Let’s bring in our White House correspondent Dan Lothian. Dan, why did the White House go ahead with what’s called this recess appointment? DAN LOTHIAN: Well, Wolf, the President really thought it was important to move forward on this position because this is the person who plays a key role in implementing the new health care law. Now, all presidents obviously have the right to make these recess appointments, but they’re always quite controversial. And Republicans, as you pointed out, are criticizing the President, saying that he’s circumventing the American people, it’s an insult to the American people. Some Republicans pointing to him saying that the reason that they don’t like him is because of comments that he has made in the past that they believe suggest that he’s an advocate for rationed health care . Robert Gibbs’ White House spokesman saying that he doesn’t believe that’s the case. But what’s also interesting about this controversy, as you pointed out, that also some top Democrats are criticizing the President . Senator Max Baucus – chairman of the Senate Finance Committee – saying he is troubled that rather than going through the standard nomination process the President has decided to go down this route. The bottom line for the White House here is that they decided to move forward because they believe that Congress has been throwing up a lot of road blocks. ROBERT GIBBS: I think it’s the type of politics that demonstrates just how badly broken the appointments process is, and the President is going to install people that need to be installed for this government to run effective and efficiently. In this case, because the appointments process is clearly broken, he did so through a recess appointment. LOTHIAN: Republicans also saying here that the White House simply did not want to have a confirmation hearing because they did not want to have some tough questions asked. By the way, this appointment lasts until the end of 2011, Wolf. BLITZER: If there had been a confirmation hearing, a formal confirmation hearing and testimony and all of that, does the White House believe he would have been confirmed? LOTHIAN: Very good question, and Robert Gibbs was asked that today at the briefing. He says, yes, they believe that he would have been confirmed, but I’ll tell you there are some key Republicans who had been looking to put up some road blocks during that hearing, so it’s unclear hether or not there would have been enough votes there to get him through the Senate. BLITZER: Very sensitive and controversial issue. Thanks very much, Dan Lothian, for that. #From the July 8 NBC Nightly News: BRIAN WILLIAMS: In this country, a new political skirmish in Washington over health care. It’s about an appointment President Obama made while Congress was out for the July Fourth break – a so-called recess appointment – naming Harvard professor Dr. Donald Berwick to manage Medicare and Medicaid, skipping the usual Senate confirmation process. Republicans are angry, claiming it’s antagonistic. One top Democrat called the recess appointment “troubling,” but the administration fired back, saying this was one of many appointments being blocked by the Senate. Berwick has spoken about the need to ration medical care to control costs.

Visit link:
Evening Newscasts Downplay or Ignore Obama Appointee Berwick’s Pro-Socialized Medicine Views, Implications for Elderly Patients

The Hill’s Brent Budowsky Compares GOP to South Africa’s Apartheid Regime

Why did the chicken cross the road? Racism, according to the liberal. Isn’t it obvious? Same reason that Republicans and conservatives oppose Obama, the liberal quickly adds. Here’s the latest example of this threadbare line of criticism, from Brent Budowsky, a columnist for The Hill’s Pundits Blog and former congressional staffer. Appearing on Ed Schultz’s radio show Tuesday, Budowsky offered an over-the-top analogy ( click here for audio) — BUDOWSKY: These Republicans today, Ed, are more right wing and obstructionist than the segregationist, racist senators during the days of the civil rights. Even those racist senators that filibustered civil rights, they also supported jobs and Medicare and some other things. You know, we’re up against a party on the Republicans that is so far off the right end, they’re acting like South Africa during the days of apartheid. … aside from not supporting segregation, forced resettlement of millions, state-sponsored violence toward dissenters, government theft of property, laws against mixed marriages —  in other words, aside from those monstrosities and many others that defined apartheid. Other than that, just like ’em.  Among the “racist senators” who filibustered civil rights? Recently deceased Democrat Robert Byrd. Later in the same show, Budowsky provided this gem to Schultz’s listeners ( audio here ) — BUDOWSKY: There is over a trillion and a half dollars sitting in corporate bank accounts being hoarded right now. Once we can liberate that money , and I say you raise taxes for the guys screwing us and you cut taxes for the guys helping us create jobs, but once that money is liberated , it’s a trillion and a half-plus dollars sitting in corporate accounts right now, we’re going to have a quarter, remember where you heard it, it may not be for a year or two, of 7 percent growth. As if transferring more than a trillion dollars to the government won’t liberate it of its potential to create more wealth. Wasn’t this type of alleged liberation a core belief of the Bolsheviks?  Budowsky’s comments reminded me of a remark he made on Schultz’s radio show in March during the contentious final weeks before the House voted on the health bill ( audio here ) — BUDOWSKY: I mean, you look at the Republicans, they attacked Jack Kennedy in Dallas with hate ads when he went there in November 22nd, ’63. They attacked Bill Clinton, they attacked Hillary Clinton, they attacked Al Gore, they attacked Nancy Pelosi, they attacked Charlie Rangel, they attacked ACORN. Those guys on the other side sure do know how to hate. Agreed, Mr. Budowsky — Republicans in Dallas greeted Kennedy with “hate ads.” Just before a left-winger killed him.

Link:
The Hill’s Brent Budowsky Compares GOP to South Africa’s Apartheid Regime

Larry King as Mr. Civility? ‘The Term Wacko Right-Winger Is Redundant’

For those who think Larry King is the sweet saint of the sensible center, we can always draw up from our Notable Quotables archives some of King’s conservative-bashing venom from the Clinton impeachment period for a rebuttal. Take a look at these: “Shouldn’t someone tell President Clinton that one of his archenemies, Rush Limbaugh, actually said the following last week, speaking in defense of Bill Gates and Microsoft? `It’s OK to lie, everybody lies in business, especially in a civil case.’ Apparently to Rush, lying is OK about business but not about sex.” — CNN’s Larry King in his October 26, 1998 USA Today column, failing to recognize Limbaugh’s parody of how liberals excuse Clinton’s lies but want Gates pursued. “If he had to testify, do you think Thomas Jefferson would have been impeached? No chance, there was no talk radio.” — CNN’s Larry King in his USA Today column, November 16, 1998. “What-if department…What if President Clinton announced a cure for cancer developed by the National Institutes of Health? What would critics say? Would Bob Barr want him impeached for failing to tell us the study was going on? Would Rush Limbaugh decry the President taking credit while admitting getting rid of cancer wasn’t a bad thing? Would Pat Buchanan insist that no nation other than America be given it? Would The Wall Street Journal worry about its effect on pharmaceutical stock prices? And so it goes….” — CNN’s Larry King in his USA Today column, February 15, 1999. ” The term wacko right-winger is redundant. For example, they’re the only people who don’t like being called compassionate. Someone remarked that many now defend the tobacco industry because its products kill people early, saving us dollars in having to care for aged people.” — “Larry King’s People” item in USA Today, March 8, 1999. “I can’t figure out how religious leaders can support the National Rifle Association. One would think that guns and God don’t mix.” — CNN host Larry King in his USA Today column, May 17, 1999.

Link:
Larry King as Mr. Civility? ‘The Term Wacko Right-Winger Is Redundant’

It’s official – Groundbreaking study shows that: Elephants never forget!

Drama as elephant stampedes through Oxford Circus! added by: RedPill_London

Al Gore story goes mainstream – Redux

Seeing as how the original post got lost in a “memory hole” I'll put it back up here. The story of Al Gore’s alleged unwanted sexual advances toward a Portland, Ore., masseuse, which had been simmering since the National Enquirer first published the allegations last week, broke into the mainstream news cycle Friday after the Portland police announced they would reopen their investigation. Anderson Cooper did a segment on the story on CNN Thursday night. By Friday, it was all over network television newscasts, while the Oregonian had a front-page mea culpa by the Portland police chief saying his department had mishandled the investigation when it first surfaced in 2006. The story’s jump from the fringe to the mainstream compounds the problems for Gore, whose family spokesman, Kalee Kreider, has said that Gore “unequivocally and emphatically” denied making unwanted sexual advances. “Further investigation into this matter will only benefit Mr. Gore.” It also brought up by-now-familiar accusations of the media’s complicity in covering up the scandal when it first surfaced. The Portland Tribune, which was looking into the story in 2007 and 2008, has taken some heat for its decision not to go forward with the story. In a piece titled “Al Gore and the Media Protection Racket,” The American Spectator’s Jeffrey Lord argued that the existence of a police report involving the former vice president was news in itself, and the Tribune should have reported it as such. For the Spectator, it was d

Gore story goes mainstream

The story of Al Gore’s alleged unwanted sexual advances toward a Portland, Ore., masseuse, which had been simmering since the National Enquirer first published the allegations last week, broke into the mainstream news cycle Friday after the Portland police announced they would reopen their investigation. Anderson Cooper did a segment on the story on CNN Thursday night. By Friday, it was all over network television newscasts, while the Oregonian had a front-page mea culpa by the Portland police chief saying his department had mishandled the investigation when it first surfaced in 2006. The story’s jump from the fringe to the mainstream compounds the problems for Gore, whose family spokesman, Kalee Kreider, has said that Gore “unequivocally and emphatically” denied making unwanted sexual advances. “Further investigation into this matter will only benefit Mr. Gore.” It also brought up by-now-familiar accusations of the media’s complicity in covering up the scandal when it first surfaced. The Portland Tribune, which was looking into the story in 2007 and 2008, has taken some heat for its decision not to go forward with the story. In a piece titled “Al Gore and the Media Protection Racket,” The American Spectator’s Jeffrey Lord argued that the existence of a police report involving the former vice president was news in itself, and the Tribune should have reported it as such. For the Spectator, it was d

Fact Checking ABC’s This Week: Most Statements PolitiFact Sees as ‘False’ Uttered by Democrats

Back in April, as ABC’s Jake Tapper took over as interim host of This Week (pending the arrival of ex-CNNer Christiane Amanpour in August), the show asked the fact-checkers at PolitiFact to evaluate the truthfulness of statements made on the show . After nearly three months, the results show far more Democrats and liberals earning a “False” rating, with most of the “True” ratings going to Republicans and conservatives. The discrepency remains even if you take into account that about two-thirds of the evaluated statements came from Democrats in the first place. From April 11 through June 20, PolitiFact has handed out seven “False” statements — six to Democrats/liberals, one to a Republican. During that same time, seven “True” labels were handed out — four for Republicans/conservatives, just two for Democrats (one, ironically, going to former President Bill Clinton). Retired General Colin Powell also picked up a “True” for a statement about the number of troops President Obama has deployed to Afghanistan, but it’s hard to say which side Powell represents these days. PolitiFact is a project of St. Petersburg Times Washington bureau chief Bill Adair, who is a frequent “fact check” guest during election years. Some of the statements hardly seem worthy of a fact-check (such as Clinton’s assertion that he never had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate; who ever said that he did?), but here are the 14 instances of “True” and “False” labeling of statements made on This Week, along with a short quote from PolitiFact’s verdict: Democrats/Liberals : Charles Schumer, April 11: “No one questioned that she (Judge Sotomayor) was out of the mainstream.” FALSE : “We recalled that phrase came up a lot during the Sotomayor confirmation debate, so we did some checking. To start, we direct your attention to a July 13, 2009, AP story under the headline, ‘Sessions: Sonia Sotomayor “out of mainstream.”‘…And Sessions wasn’t the only Republican to invoke the ‘out of the mainstream’ claim….We understand that ‘out of the mainstream’ is a subjective term, but the fact is that a number of Republican senators used that exact phrase.” Former President Bill Clinton, April 18: “I never had a filibuster-proof Senate.” TRUE : “Senate records show Republicans held 43 seats when Clinton came into office, and they added another seat in June of that year with the election of Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas….Republicans won a majority of seats in the Senate in the 1994 elections and retained control of both houses throughout the remainder of Clinton’s presidency.” Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, April 25: “Fifteen years ago, the assets of the six largest banks in this country totaled 17 percent of GDP … The assets of the six largest banks in the United States today total 63 percent of GDP.” TRUE : “Independent sources and experts confirm that, so we rate his statement True.” HBO Host Bill Maher, May 2: “Brazil got off oil in the last 30 years.” FALSE : “In 2008, Brazil ranked No. 7 on the list of the world’s countries that consume the most oil, using about 2.5 million barrels per day….It’s also embarking on more offshore drilling in some of the deepest waters for exploration. Brazil is hardly ‘off oil.'” Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, June 6: “Every major study that has been done by a legitimate group … shows that there are hundreds of thousands of jobs to be created if you pass our (cap-and-trade) legislation. And if you wind up pricing carbon.” FALSE : “The fact is that other ‘legitimate groups’ have performed studies and reached different conclusions. Kerry’s statement suggests there is some unanimity of opinion among legitimate organizations about cap-and-trade’s effect on jobs. And that’s just not so.” Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas, June 6: Turkey is an Arab country. FALSE : “The one thing that Turkey has in common with the Arab world is religion: An estimated 99.8 percent of the Turkish population is Muslim….Moulitsas has graciously copped to his error (and even invited us to ding him), but the Truth-O-Meter doesn’t cut any slack for confessions.” Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, June 13: The Obama administration “has been constrained by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which basically gives the responsible party the lead role in trying to not only fix the problem, but contain the problem.” FALSE : “In fact, the Oil Pollution Act specifcially gives the federal government the authority to decide who’s in charge of the clean-up — the polluter or the government. The company, in this case BP, will pay for the clean-up response. But the federal government can give the orders if it chooses.” White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, June 20: “In the case of General Motors, the (Bush) administration wrote a check without asking for any conditions of change.” FALSE : “The Bush administration did put specific requirements on the auto companies that included paying down debt, limits on executive compensation, and negotiated reductions in wages and benefits for autoworkers. It also required the companies to submit detailed restructuring plans by Feb. 17, 2009, that would show how the company planned to achieve and sustain ‘long-term viability, international competitiveness and energy efficiency.'” Republicans/Conservatives : Arizona Senator Jon Kyl, April 11: “President Obama himself attempted to filibuster Justice Alito, who now sits on the Supreme Court.” TRUE : “We found that Obama did join a broader Democratic effort to filibuster Alito. Democrats said Alito opposed abortion and was too deferential to executive power. But in what’s become Obama’s trademark on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand style, he joined the filibuster while at the same time saying he thought it was a bad idea.” Jon Kyl, April 11: Says he did not say Republicans would filibuster immigration reform. FALSE : “Kyl’s staff provided us with a transcript and video; they said it showed more context for Kyl’s statement. We reviewed the material; here’s an extended version of Kyl remarks: ‘My guess is, neither (card check and immigration reform) will have the votes to pass. But because political promises have been made to key constituency of the party that is in power, that they’re going to do something about these problems, they will bring up very partisan legislation. Republicans will, primarily Republicans, will vote it down, that is to say we will prevent it from coming up through the filibuster….'” GOP Chairman Michael Steele, May 23: In Hawaii, “they don’t have a history of throwing incumbents out of office.” TRUE : “Depending how you count it, that puts the re-election rate in Hawaii between 98 percent and 100 percent, which is higher than the national average over the same period….No incumbent has ever lost a November congressional election in Hawaii.” Michael Steele, May 23: The Republican Party “fought very hard in the ’60s to get the civil rights bill passed, as well as the voting rights bill.” TRUE : “The degree of Republican support for the two bills actually exceeded the degree of Democratic support, and it’s also fair to say that Republicans took leading roles in both measures, even though they had far fewer seats, and thus less power, at the time.” House Minority Leader John Boehner, June 13: “The House has never failed to pass a budget in the modern era.” TRUE : “According to the Congressional Research Service, the nonpartisan research arm of Congress, the House has indeed passed a budget every year since the Congressional Budget Act first took effect for fiscal year 1976.” Goes Both Ways : Retired General Colin Powell, May 30: “The president has added close to 68,000 troops in the last year, since he came into office, not just the 30,000 you hear, but the others that were added before that.” TRUE : “Obama took office with about 34,000 troops. There are now 94,000 troops and closing in on 98,000 troops by summer. When you count small additions by NATO, that gets us close to 68,000.” As with many political statements, there were many “Mostly True” (5 Dem vs. 2 GOP, plus Joe Lieberman), “Barely True” (2 Dem vs. 1 GOP, plus a BP official), and “Half True” assertions (9 Dem/Lib vs. 2 GOP/Con) catalogued over the past three months. You can see the whole list at PolitiFact.com .

See the original post here:
Fact Checking ABC’s This Week: Most Statements PolitiFact Sees as ‘False’ Uttered by Democrats

Networks Mostly Skip Tense Kagan Exchange Over Abortion Memo, Downplay Hearings

Wednesday’s evening news shows and Thursday’s morning programs continued to minimize or leave out important moments of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearings. ABC’s Good Morning America, for instance, has offered only 67 seconds of coverage over three days. Today and The Early Show each provided a single 10 second news brief on Thursday. It’s not as though the second day of testimony lacked interesting developments. The New York Times on July 1 reported the intense questioning by Senator Orrin Hatch on an abortion memo written by then-Clinton White House Counsel Kagan. Hatch demanded, “Did you write that memo?…But did you write it? Is it your memo?” Kagan’s memo worried that a American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) report on abortion could be a “disaster” for the Clinton administration. None of the morning shows on Thursday mentioned the exchange between Hatch and Kagan. On Wednesday, only CBS’s Evening News raised the subject. Reporter Jan Crawford observed, “But when Senators tried to pin her down on other specific issues, she sidestepped. On whether she helped craft strategies supporting partial-birth abortion-” She then broke off and featured a clip of Hatch grilling. Crawford herself allowed that “over three days, there were plenty of tense and testy moments.” Apparently these examples were not interesting enough for ABC. In addition to only allowing 67 seconds on GMA, World News skipped the hearings completely. NBC’s Nightly News provided a more generalized account of the second day on hearings. Ignoring the abortion issue, correspondent Pete Williams explained that Kagan appeared “to back away from the position she expressed last year on gay marriage.” On another issue, Williams added, “But she very clearly rejected something she once wrote as a student. In a college paper, she had said judges have ‘authority to make social changes,’ power that ‘becomes irresistible.'” Nightly News, as well as the morning shows, also ignored ignored a clip of Kagan telling senators, “I’ve been a Democrat all my life. I’ve worked for two Democratic Presidents, and those are, you know, that’s what my political views are.” Only the Evening News noted the remark.  For more on Kagan’s abortion memo, see a CNSNews.com article on the topic: Three years after ACOG released its statement on partial-birth abortion — that included verbatim the words that had been the handwritten notes in Kagan’s White House files — the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Stenberg v. Carhart, which declared Nebraska’s ban on partial-birth abortion unconstitutional. Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the Court’s decision in the case, quoting verbatim the passage from the ACOG statement on intact dilatation and extraction abortion that had originally appeared in the handwritten notes in Elena Kagan’s files released by the Clinton Presidential Library. Breyer wrote: “The District Court also noted that a select panel of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists concluded that D&X ‘may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.’” “The picture that’s emerging,” says National Right to Life Legislative Director Douglas Johnson, reflecting on Kagan’s Clinton White House files, is that “it appears that Kagan was perhaps the key strategist in blocking enactment of the partial-birth abortion ban act.” Johnson also said he believes that Kagan had “her hands on this from the beginning to the end.” A transcript of the Evening News segment, which aired at on June 30, follows: SCOTT PELLEY: On Capitol Hill today, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan parried her way through her last day of confirmation hearings. Back in the 1990s when Kagan was an assistant law professor, she complained that such Senate hearings are, quote, “a vapid and hollow charade” because the nominees refuse to say anything of substance. Oh, how things change when you’re sitting in the witness chair. Here’s our chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford. JAN CRAWFORD: Over three days, there were plenty of tense and testy moments. SENATOR JON KYL (R-AZ): I absolutely disagree with you about that. SENATOR ARLEN SPECTER (D-PA): Apparently I’m not going to get an answer there, either. CRAWFORD: She defended her record on military recruiting at Harvard. SENATOR JON CORNYN (R-TX): It strikes me that the sole result and impact was to stigmatize the United States military on the campus. ELENA KAGAN: It certainly was not to stigmatize the military. And every time I talked about this policy and many times besides I talked about the honor I had for the military. CRAWFORD: But when Senators tried to pin her down on other specific issues, she sidestepped. On whether she helped craft strategies supporting partial-birth abortion. SENATOR ORRIN HATCH (R-UT): Did you write that memo? KAGAN: Senator, with respect, I don’t think that that’s what happened. HATCH: But did you write it? Is it your memo? KAGAN: The document is certainly in my handwriting. CRAWFORD: On gay marriage. SENATOR CHARLES GRASSLEY (R-IA): Do you believe that marriage is a question reserved for the states to decide? KAGAN: There is, of course, a case coming down the road, and I want to be extremely careful about this question. CRAWFORD: But on some things, Kagan was blunt. KAGAN: I’ve been a Democrat all my life. I’ve worked for two Democratic Presidents, and those are, you know, that’s what my political views are. SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): And would you consider your political views progressive? KAGAN: My political views are generally progressive, generally- CRAWFORD: She also showed real savvy, deftly deflecting Democrats’ criticisms of the Roberts court. KAGAN: I’m not agreeing to your characterizations of the current court. I think that that would be inappropriate for me to do- SENATOR SHELDON WHITEHOUSE (D-RI): I understand that. KAGAN: -and I’m sure that everybody up there is acting in good faith. CRAWFORD: And mixed with the serious exchanges was humor, something nominees typically are cautioned to avoid in case a joke backfires. SENATOR TOM COBURN (R-OK): I’m 12 or 13 years older than you. KAGAN: Maybe not after this hearing. COBURN: No, I’m sure I’m older. GRAHAM: Where are you at on Christmas Day? KAGAN: You know, like all Jews, I was probably at a Chinese restaurant. (AUDIENCE LAUGHTER) CRAWFORD: But without a misstep, Kagan seemed headed for easy confirmation. SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): If you were confirmed – and I believe you’re going to be- CRAWFORD: One reason Republicans are unlikely to put up a fight is that she’s replacing a liberal. She won’t change the balance of the court. GRAHAM: So I wish you well and I know your family is proud of you and I think you’ve acquitted yourself very well. CRAWFORD: So is this a charade, Scott? Well, even Kagan herself admitted there’s no real upside to answering specific questions. It’s a successful strategy not to, and it looks like it’s going to work in her case as well.

Read more here:
Networks Mostly Skip Tense Kagan Exchange Over Abortion Memo, Downplay Hearings

CNN and MSNBC Applaud Elena Kagan’s Capitol Hill Comedy Hour

In covering Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearings, CNN and MSNBC have repeatedly lauded the Supreme Court nominee for her “flashes of humor” and “disarming ease.” In tune with the reverberations of the network morning shows’ echo chamber , correspondents like CNN’s Dana Bash and anchors like MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on Tuesday praised Kagan for her ability to inject humor into otherwise “hollow and vapid” hearings and charm hostile Republican senators into docility. “But just on a color note, what struck me, Candy, has been the way Elena Kagan has tried to use a sense of humor to really disarm the senators, particularly Republicans,” noted Bash. Maddow’s guest, Dahlia Lithwick of the liberal Slate magazine, gushed over Kagan’s “gut-wrenching” sense of humor, her masterful ability to balance “seriousness and levity and humor,” and her “disarming and charming and kind of likeable” personality. “A likeable liberal. Dear me, I know,” quipped Maddow. Anchoring the live coverage of the hearings, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews turned to Susan Page, USA Today Washington bureau chief, who applauded Kagan’s performance: You know, it’s interesting since Kagan argued this case she feels pretty comfortable with it and you see, I think, a more free-flowing exchange between the senator and the nominee there then we’ve seen on some others. Kagan famously called these hearings “vapid and hollow” in the past but we’ve seen some flashes of humor here this morning. And interestingly, Kagan said that she thought it would be a terrific idea to have TV cameras in the Supreme Court. On her eponymous program, CNN’s Campbell Brown aired Kagan’s playful banter with Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) before querying CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin: “So, apart from the fact that she has got a sense of humor, what did we really learn today about Elena Kagan?” Over on MSNBC’s “The Ed Show,” substitute host Christopher Hayes, editor of the left-wing magazine The Nation and husband of a White House counselor, reckoned that the most newsworthy part of the hearings so far has been Kagan’s charm: Perhaps the most notable thing to report from today’s hearing is that Kagan is, as advertised, really a charmer. The nominee who once derided this process as, quote, “vapid and hollow” was no doubt probably and possibly justifiably in for a cold reception. But today, Kagan displayed the disarming ease, wit and knack for a well-timed joke that have made her so uniformly well-liked by her colleagues in other endeavors. On Wednesday’s “American Morning,” Bash continued to push the humor narrative, noting, “Throughout the day, Kagan tried to disarm senators by interjecting with humor…and Kagan really made a point early on, on setting that light-hearted tone, interjecting all the time with quick whips and — quips, I should say, and then witty comments.” MSNBC “The Daily Rundown” co-hosts Savannah Guthrie and Chuck Todd wrapped up the Wednesday program with a recap of the hearing’s most “humorous” moments, including Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) discussing the latest installment of the Twighlight saga. (H/T MRC intern Matt Hadro ) There’s nothing wrong with color commentary, but the media’s emphasis on humanizing Kagan is coming at the expense of critical reporting on her nomination hearings and what little she’s willing to shed in the hearings about how she’ll approach constitutional issues on the bench. Transcripts of the relevant portions of the cited programs can be found below: MSNBC NewsLive 6/29/10 10:54 a.m. CHRIS MATTHEWS: And this came out in the president’s State of the Union where he took a swipe at the Supreme Court with Samuel Alito and other justices there and they didn’t like it. SUSAN PAGE, USA Today Washington bureau chief: They didn’t. You know, it’s interesting since Kagan argued this case she feels pretty comfortable with it and you see, I think, a more free-flowing exchange between the Senator and the nominee there then we’ve seen on some others. Kagan famously called these hearings “vapid and hollow” in the past but we’ve seen some flashes of humor here this morning. And interestingly, Kagan said that she thought it would be a terrific idea to have TV cameras in the Supreme Court. If she gets confirmed that’s an issue where she’ll have some real issues with her colleagues. CNN Newsroom 6/29/10 12:24 p.m. DANA BASH, CNN correspondent: Well, first, just on substance, I want to point out what John did just at the beginning of this conversation, that what Elena Kagan revealed or maybe more to the point, clarified, was in the memo that she had scribbled notes, “KKK, NRA,” as a bad organization. That has been flying around conservative circles as an ah-ha moment. And when they saw these documents I think about a week or two weeks ago when they were released by the Clinton library as proof that she is just a liberal, what she told us just now, what she told Senator Kyl, is that she was taking notes on somebody else’s conversation. So if that’s the case, that certainly appears to deflate that particular argument that conservatives have been making. But just on a color note, what struck me, Candy, has been the way Elena Kagan has tried to use a sense of humor to really disarm the senators, particularly Republicans. And Jeff knows her, so this may not seem a surprise to him. But just for example, when John Kyl came out after the break, there nobody was in the room and he said “I guess nobody wants to hear my questions” and without missing a beat, she said “maybe nobody wants to hear my answers.” And another time, Senator Hatch was talking about the fact that he and Senator Leahy were having a little disagreement. They’re kind of like an old married couple, and I say this respectfully and they would probably agree, and Elena Kagan again without missing a beat saying, “don’t worry go ahead, it takes the spotlight off of me.” I don’t remember seeing that certainly from recent confirmation hearings at this level, not from Sonia Sotomayor, and at least at the beginning, you know, as these nominees are getting comfortable. But it just seems to me the kind of charm she has. MSNBC The Ed Show 6/29/10 6:17 p.m.      HAYES: Perhaps the most notable thing to report from today’s hearing is that Kagan is, as advertised, really a charmer. The nominee who once derided this process as, quote, “vapid and hollow” was no doubt probably and possibly justifiably in for a cold reception. But today, Kagan displayed the disarming ease, wit and knack for a well-timed joke that have made her so uniformly well-liked by her colleagues in other endeavors. Of course, beyond that, we still didn’t get that much of an indication of what kind of justice she’d make, although she does support letting cameras into the Supreme Court. CNN Campbell Brown 6/29/10 8:24 p.m. BROWN: It was a long day on Capitol Hill for Elena Kagan. It was day two of her confirmation hearing. It just wrapped up a little while ago. She faced some tough questions on everything from the War on Terror to her politics. Listen to this exchange with Arizona Senator Jon Kyl. Sen. JON KYL (R-Ariz.): Do you agree with the characterization by some of my colleagues that the current Court is too activist in supporting the position of corporations and Big Business? ELENA KAGAN, Supreme Court nominee: Senator Kyl, I would not want to characterize the current court in any way. I hope one day to join it. KYL: And they said you are not political, right?                      BROWN: So, apart from the fact that she has got a sense of humor, what did we really learn today about Elena Kagan? MSNBC Rachel Maddow 6/29/10 9:30 p.m. RACHEL MADDOW: And how do you think that Kagan is doing, thus far, as a nominee? Obviously, today was the first day she took questions. It’s clear that just from what I saw of the hearings today, that she seems very relaxed. DAHLIA LITHWICK, Slate senior editor: Relaxed, funny. You know, she brought the room to a standstill, just gut-wrenching laughter. At some point, Lindsey Graham asked her, what were you doing when the Christmas Day bomber was caught on Christmas Day? And she said, like pretty much all Jews, I was probably at a Chinese restaurant. I mean, you know, people were applauding. She`s very funny, Rachel. She`s very disarming. But at the same time, I think she does a good job of saying, look, I take the law very seriously. At one point, she was questioned about her passions and she couldn’t get passionate about anything but the law. So, she’s doing a good job of balancing seriousness and levity and humor, and I think real charm. The thing I really am enjoying this time around is it sometimes feels like these hearings shrink the nominee down to a smaller version of who they are. This is actually letting someone who looks good on paper but is hard to love in paper become quite human and warm and big luminous smile. And so I don’t know if that’s working for everyone, but it’s quite clear that the senators are finding her disarming and charming and kind of likeable. MADDOW: A likeable liberal. Dear me, I know. She won`t call herself liberal but the press is going to have a hard time understanding how to report on this. Dahlia Lithwick, senior editor and legal correspondent for Slate magazine, I always really appreciate your insight on days like this. Thanks a lot, Dahlia. CNN American Morning 6/30/10 7:17 a.m. BASH: Throughout the day, Kagan tried to disarm senators by interjecting with humor. Sen. TOM COBURN (R-Okla.): This is softball. KAGAN: You promise? COBURN: I promise. Sen. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-S.C.) I just ask you where you’re at on Christmas. KAGAN: You know, like all Jews, I was probably at a Chinese restaurant. BASH: And Kagan really made a point early on, on setting that light-hearted tone, interjecting all the time with quick whips and — quips, I should say, and then witty comments. And you know, it really did change the tenor of things, for example, when one of her starkest opponents, Senator Tom Coburn, who sits here was trying to ask her some questions she wouldn’t answer it. Instead of really going after her, he made a joke. He followed her lead and said “maybe you’re dancing so much, maybe you should be on ‘Dancing with the Stars.'” John and Kiran. –Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.

Read this article:
CNN and MSNBC Applaud Elena Kagan’s Capitol Hill Comedy Hour