The Senate is about to vote on the new START nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia, and all expectations are that the treaty will pass. This caps off a very productive lame duck session with a major foreign policy victory for the Obama[...]
Read The Full Article:
From Associated Press, via MSNBC:
The U.S. Senate approved a new strategic nuclear arms treaty with Russia on Wednesday, handing President Barack Obama a major foreign policy victory in his drive to improve ties with Moscow and curb the spread of atomic weapons to other countries.
The Senate voted 71-26 in favor of ratification after a contentious debate that threatened traditional bipartisanship on national security affairs.
The treaty limits each country's strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550, down from the current ceiling of 2,200. It also establishes a system for monitoring and verification. U.S. weapons inspections ended last year with the expiration of a 1991 treaty.
Yesterday's FCC decision on Net Neutrality has everyone up in arms on both sides of the battle. Did they split the baby in half or sell out?
Republicans are furious over the decision. Kay Bailey Hutchison took to the Senate floor for 30 minutes or so yesterday railing about how the FCC had overstepped their authority and robbed Congress of theirs. On the other side, NN activists are equally angry over what they view as extremely weak regulatory solutions to the much larger problem of keeping the Internet open and accessible to all. Dan Gillmor predicts the end of the Internet as innovation incubator, and sees it becoming much more like cable TV. I fear he's right.
Ars Technica has a great analysis of why everyone hates it. On the Republican side of things, it's simply that there was any effort at all to regulate the Internet, because we all know backbone providers want nothing more than to provide access to everyone at a low price with no discrimination among users or sites, right? Not so much. This graphic tells the tale.
On the other hand, the regulations they passed have different, less restrictive rules for wireless than wired, and are still hardly enforceable. They allow for paid prioritization, so that each ISP can throttle or charge extra for access to sites like YouTube and Netflix.
Even the Future of Music Coalition, which represents artists, lamented the fact that net neutrality "seemingly falls short of offering full protections."
They don't share Baker's default view of huge ISPs, which dominate the US landscape for wireline broadband, as cuddly companies who would like nothing better than to innovate and invest. And they're deeply disappointed that wireless companies are largely excluded from discrimination rules.
Yeah, that wireless loophole is a pretty big one. And it's a real thorn in the side of pro-Net Neutrality advocates. Interesting that it was Android's ubiquity and so-called openness which drove it. Carriers have made a point of taking that "open system" and locking it down tight with their own bloatware and services, so I'm at a loss to understand the logic of loosening wireless regulations as a result. So, by the way, is TechCrunch's MJ Siegler, who wonders why on earth an operating system would have any impact on a Net Neutrality decision.
Except wait. What the hell does an open operating system have anything to do with network access? Nilay Patel wonders this. John Gruber wonders this. Everyone should wonder this. It really does almost read as if they just copied what Google and Verizon laid out and forgot to remove the self-promotion.
Meanwhile, we still have Comcast's acquisition of NBCU to worry about, as Level 3 Communications takes that to the next level by pressuring the FCC to look at the merger in light of their Net Neutrality rules.
After the NBC Universal acquisition, Comcast?s incentive to discriminate is increased, as those providers now also compete against Comcast?s affiliated Hulu and NBC content,? the Level 3 submission stated. Furthermore, even if online video is viewed as a separate market from cable TV, the deal would give Comcast more reason to play a gatekeeper role.
So I guess we could say that the FCC split the baby and named one half Google and the other half Verizon?
You know it has to be bad when Halliburton is complaining about poor treatment. The Guardian:
John Naland, head of the provincial reconstruction team in Basra, wrote in January this year that several oil company representatives complained of "unwarranted high prices" given an improving security situation since 2008.
"Halliburton Iraq country manager decried a 'mafia' of these companies and their 'outrageous' prices, and said that they also exaggerate the security threat.
"Apart from the high costs for routine trips, he claimed that Halliburton often receives what he says are 'questionable' reports of vulnerability of employees to kidnapping and ransom. He said that he recently saw an internal memo from their security company which tasked its employees to emphasize the persistent danger faced by IOCs [international oil companies]." Naland wrote.
okay - just went to Housing Works, a thrift store in NYC, where I purchased a SIGNED copy of Crashing the Gate by Jerome Armstrong and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga for 3 dollars (signed by both authors!)
Story's not over...moments ago I picked it up to marvel at the bargain treasure I had found, and squirreled away within its pages...122 fucking dollars! (a hundred dollar bill, a ten, 2 fives and a pair of ones!) It's a Christmas miracle!
I have a ton of data on total diary posts, comments/diary, etc. That’s all public, scraped from the site. Let’s see if comment practices and diary posts expand or contract, 2 or 3 months out. Let’s see how the top diarists behave, and if new "star" diarists emerge as well. Let’s see if they form geographically-based tag clouds, and use it to augment meetups. Let’s see how they incorporate facebook, twitter, and youtube. Let’s see if other organizations, like Courage Campaign, OFA, PCCC, etc, treat DailyKos as an ecology or as a separate organization (do they work in coalition with DKos, organize through DKos, or a hybrid of both?).
This will probably cause a hiatus in my book-writing for at least a few weeks. I’ve reached out to two other researchers so far to see if they’re interested in developing a research program around the rollout. If you’re interested in taking part, please let me know.
...the earth will end only when God declares it's time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood.... I appreciate having panelists here who are men of faith, and we can get into the theological discourse of that position, but I do believe God's word is infallible, unchanging, perfect.
Today we have about 388 parts per million in the atmosphere. I think in the age of dinosaurs, when we had the most flora and fauna, we were probably at 4,000 parts per million. There is a theological debate that this is a carbon-starved planet — not too much carbon. And the cost of a cap-and-trade on the poor is now being discovered."
So that's that.
Liberal Democrats' approval of Obama remained subdued, averaging 80% in the past week, similar to the 79% in the previous week and below the 88% found just prior to the midterm elections. This is based on Democrats as well as independents who lean Democratic.
Obama's approval from liberal Democrats is now on par with that from moderate Democrats (78%), although still higher than conservative Democrats' approval (69%).
In contrast, Obama's approval rating among moderate/liberal Republicans (including independents who lean Republican) has increased in December, rising from 20% to 29% in just the past two weeks. This is his highest level of support from moderate/liberal Republicans since May.
Will moderate/liberal Republicans make calls, donate, and walk precincts for Obama?
Given the option of saying they prefer that stores and businesses greet customers by saying "Merry Christmas," use non-religious terms such as "Happy Holidays" or "Season's Greetings," or that the choice of greeting really does not matter to them, a plurality (45%) choose this last alternative. Only 42% say they prefer "Merry Christmas," while 12% prefer less religious terminology. Most striking is the age difference in preferences for holiday greetings. Only among those ages 65 and over, does a majority (64%) opt for "Merry Christmas." That preference declines across younger age groups with only 28% of those under age 30 opting for the Christmas greeting while roughly six-in-ten say the choice of greeting doesn't matter to them.
Then again, they did just take a baseball bat to immigrant kids, so beating up on cops and firemen is only par for the course with those guys.
Over the years, O'Reilly, adopting his anti-elitism shtick, has droned on and on about his middle class Long Island upbringing outside New York City. And after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, did any Fox News host puff out his chest while pledging his allegiance to the Big Apple and the men and women who protect it, quite like O'Reilly did?
Now when his bothers and sisters in the NYPD and FDNY need a champion in the press as they desperately try to get passed historical legislation that would help them battle Sept. 11-related diseases, suddenly Best Buddy Bill O'Reilly is nowhere to be found. (Unlike colleague Shep Smith.) Suddenly proud Long Island native Bill O'Reilly doesn't want to talk about the Congressional fight over first responder health care [...]
And what did O'Reilly finally have to say about the bill last night? He obediently read off RNC talking points and attacked Democrats for "demogoguing" on the issue. He blamed Democrats for not getting the bill passed when it enjoys nearly universal support among Democrats. And he parroted Republicans about how the bill might be a waste of money.
The New York Daily News is reporting that, after a marathon negotiating session late last night and continuing into this morning, Senate Democrats have struck a deal to pass the 9/11 first responders bill with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), who has been blocking the bill because of its cost. Coburn, along with fellow-obstructionist Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY), managed to extract huge concessions, bringing the total compensation package to $4.3 billion, down from an original pool of over $7 billion. The “time span was also significantly limited to five years each for the health treatment program.”
“I’ll stand in the way of anything that doesn’t make sense and doesn’t spend our money wisely, so you know, it doesn’t matter what the issue is, we’re in such a hole, Jon, that we don’t have the luxury of not getting things right,” Coburn told ABC News today after announcing the deal.
Last night on CNBC, Coburn defended his obstruction of the bill and his insistence that it lavishes too much money on dying 9/11 first responders, saying “we’re spending four times as much money as we need to.” Coburn said that the actual cost of pre-deal bill would be $11 billion (he disputed the way the Congressional Budget Office scored it), and suggested that it was not paid for, saying, “we don’t have an extra $11 billion right now.” Watch it:
Of course, the bill would not require an “extra” $11 billion. The bill is entirely paid for by offsets, some of which were changed at the GOP’s behest. As ThinkProgress has noted, these offsets — which at one point included a tax on foreign corporations — led the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to lobby against the measure.
Meanwhile, on MSNBC’s Countdown last night, guest host Chris Hayes brought on Ground Zero worker T.J. Gilmartin, who recounted his disturbing interaction with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) on the bill earlier this month. Gilmartin told his heartbreaking story about losing his ability to breath properly after working in the toxic dust at Ground Zero, how he can no longer work, and has “nothing left.” Still, he said he has no regrets about volunteering to work after 9/11. Speaking hypothetically to Coburn, Gilmartin asked, “what about the responders in Oklahoma?” “What are you going to tell them as they get sicker and sicker and start dying and they need help? Are you going tell them, ‘Well, I had a to bicker like a 5 year old in kindergarten’?” Watch it:
So the marriage has been a little rocky here after the first couple of years. There's been some[...]
Read The Full Article:
First let me say this: It is not my intent in this post to denigrate Mr. Obama's performance as a negotiator... in spite of the first sentence in the quote below. I have my opinions in that regard and have stated them often enough. Nor is my intention to beat the dead horse of tax cuts for the rich deal itself. That's done and there's nothing left for us to do but get up, wipe the blood off and move on.
It's the second sentence in that first paragraph that bears directly on my purpose in making this post which is to delineate the danger to Social Security as a direct result of allowing the Republicans to steer the debate. I've highlighted it for some of my Teabagger friends who seem to have trouble determining relative pertinence.
While Mr. Baker has chosen to exercise his god of the blogs given right to the use of snark to make his point, the scenario he presents is an all too real and all too possible one and one that I've been ringing bells and shouting from the rooftops over for months now.
President Obama insists that he is a really bad negotiator, therefore the deal he got on the two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts and the one-year extension of UI benefits was the best that he could do. This package also came with a one-year cut in the Social Security tax.
This cut will seriously threaten the program's finances if next year, the Republican Congress is no more willing to end a temporary tax cut than this year's Democratic Congress.
The logic here is straightforward. Under the law, the Bush tax cuts were supposed to end in 2010. Tax rates returned to their pre-tax cut levels in 2011. However, the Republicans maintained a steady drumbeat about the evils of raising taxes in the middle of a downturn, even if the tax increase would just apply to the richest 2 percent of the population.
As we saw, President Obama and the Democratic Congress could not muster the votes needed to overcome the Republicans and ended up extending the tax cuts for the richest two percent of the population. The Democrats will be faced with a similar situation at the end of 2011 when the Social Security tax cut is scheduled to expire, except that this time the tax cut in question will apply to overwhelming majority of working people.
Okay, while you're all trying to figure that one out, here are some facts you may need to include in your calculations.
Also, the House will be controlled by the Republicans and the Senate will be considerably less Democratic. This raises the possibility, if not the likelihood, that the tax cut will remain in place indefinitely, more than doubling the size of Social Security's projected long-term shortfall.
Before we even get to this juncture the Republicans will have another opportunity to impose a really bad deal on President Obama. Sometime in the spring the government will run up against its debt ceiling. This will prevent the government from any further borrowing.
Since the government has a substantial deficit, with spending exceeding revenue, hitting this limit would mean that the government would not have sufficient funds to pay for all its programs. It also would mean that the government could not pay interest or principal on debt that is coming due, in effect requiring it to default on its debt.
The prospect of the U.S. government defaulting on its debt creates the sort of end of the world scenario in which Congress rushed to pass the TARP in 2008. Back then, President Bush, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and all sorts of other luminaries told members of Congress and the public that we would have a second Great Depression if the Wall Street banks were not immediately bailed out, no questions asked. And the money flowed.
The prospect of defaulting on the debt will create a similar outbreak of shrill warnings of disaster. This would likely to lead to scenario in which President Obama signs whatever debt ceiling package House Republicans hand him, even if it includes the privatization of Social Security and Medicare and major cuts and/or elimination of other important programs. The argument from the administration will be that they have no choice.
Every concession, every attempt to feed the Vampire Squid while making do with the crumbs that dribbled down its chin has been a step on the way to destroying Social Security which has been the Wall Street... and therefore the conservative... Holy Grail ever since it was created.
Every time we accepted what the Wall Street and the Republicans were willing to grant us instead of standing up and not only fighting for what was right but making them fight for what was wrong, we drove another nail in the coffin of Social Security.
So again people... what happens at the end of 2011 when we'll be faced once again with a choice between what is needed and "all we can get"?
As an old school curmudgeon, I've just always had this notion in the back of my head that if the founding fathers had settled for what they thought they could get instead of getting up on their hind legs and going for the seemingly impossible against what was then the most powerful nation on Earth, we'd all be speaking with Cockney accents and bowing to the queen today.
Just my humble opinion.
Read The Full Article:
Voting rights groups scored a major victory in their efforts to bring the State of New Mexico into compliance with the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) when a judge ruled that the state Human Services Division is violating the NVRA[...]
Read The Full Article:
The past year found Fox & Friends solidifying its position as part of the campaign arm of the Republican Party through a barrage of attacks on President Obama, Islam, immigrants, health care, climate change, and by relentlessly campaigning for the GOP leading up to the midterm elections. Media Matters offers a look back at some of Fox & Friends' most outrageous moments of 2010.
Doocy: "Could President Obama Be Running The Most Destructive Administration In Our History?" On the August 26 show, co-host Steve Doocy introduced David Limbaugh to promote his book by asking, "From health care to the billion dollar stimulus -- trillion dollar stimulus -- President Obama has been pushing through legislation despite public outcry against it. Still, he claims to be doing it for all of us, the people. ... But could President Obama be running the most destructive administration in our history?" [Fox & Friends, 8/26/10]
Varney: "You're Asking Me, Is [Obama] A Socialist, And The Answer Is: He Sure Looks Like One." On the February 25 edition of Fox & Friends, responding to President Obama's claim that he is "an ardent believer in the free market," co-host Brian Kilmeade asked Fox Business host Stuart Varney, "Does he have a right to be defensive, or does his track record say something different?" Varney responded:
VARNEY: Well, look, he has nationalized industries, from cars to housing to student loans, and maybe health care. He has demonized profitable industries, from oil to banks. He's expanded the role of government and vastly expanded the workforce of the government. He's redistributed wealth and income. Those are all the hallmarks of a very left-of-center administration which is making America look more and more like Europe. So the answer -- look, you're asking me, is he a socialist, and the answer is: He sure looks like one. [Fox News' Fox & Friends, 2/25/10]
Carlson: "Some Would Say" That Obama Is "Apologizing To These Muslim Terrorists ... Instead Of Taking Them Head On." On the January 7 edition of the show, co-host Gretchen Carlson responded to a story that counterterrorism official Michael Leiter stayed on vacation after the attempted 2009 Christmas Day attack by saying "that would be the microcosm of what some people say is the macrocosm of this administration's viewpoints on the war on terror. That, some would argue, that if it's not taken seriously or if you have a different ideology about apologizing to these Muslim terrorists, some would say, instead of actually taking them on, head on, then this is the kind of action that you get from your top people." [Fox & Friends, 1/7/10]
Kilmeade Asks, "If [Obama] Was Worried" About People Thinking He's Muslim, "Wouldn't He Have Kept His Name As Barry And Not Barack?" On the August 30 edition of the show, Kilmeade reacted to news that "24 percent of this country thinks the president is a Muslim" by asking, "If he was worried about that would he have changed -- kept his name as Barry and not Barack?" [Fox & Friends, 8/30/10]
Dobbs: Obama To Start Ruling "By Fiat" Because "This Has Been Too Complicated, This Democracy Thing." On the February 16 edition of the show, guest Lou Dobbs responded to a story about Obama's ability to communicate his message by falsely claiming, "What I find interesting, Steve, is now they're announcing that they're going to do things by executive order, by fiat" because "this has been too complicated, this democracy thing." [Fox & Friends, 2/16/10]
Kilmeade: "Not All Muslims Are Terrorists, But All Terrorists Are Muslims." On the October 15 edition of the show, Kilmeade defended Fox News host Bill O'Reilly's comments on the October 14 edition of ABC's The View by claiming the show's hosts "were outraged that somebody was saying there's a reason -- there was a certain group of people that attacked us on 9-11. It wasn't just one person. It was one religion. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims." Kilmeade later apologized, saying "I'm sorry about that, if I offended or hurt anybody's feelings. But that's it." [Fox & Friends, 10/15/10, 10/18/10]
Peter Johnson Jr.: New York Muslims Should "Give Up Their Rights" In Order To Be "Good Neighbors." Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson Jr. stated on the August 20 edition of the show that the issue of the Park51 Islamic center is "about neighbors becoming good neighbors." He added: "Any American can assert a right. Great Americans give up their rights to help those they share nothing else with but a love of this country." On September 3, Johnson repeated that those building the Islamic center should "give up their First Amendment rights." [Fox & Friends, 8/20/10, 9/3/10]
Fox & Friends Allows, Then Whitewashes, Franklin Graham's Incendiary Anti-Islam Rhetoric. Rev. Franklin Graham appeared on the April 22 edition of the show and expressed his desire to convert Muslims, adding that he wants Muslims "to know that they don't have to die in a car bomb; they don't have to die in some kind of holy war to be accepted by God" and that he's speaking "out for people that live under Islam, that are enslaved by Islam." Following his appearance, Carlson reported that the Army had rescinded Graham's invitation to speak at the Pentagon's Day of Prayer, saying that "so many people believe that the Army acquiesced" to Graham's opponents, while Johnson defended Graham's comments, saying, "Vindictiveness has won over redemption, has won over prayer," and asking whether "we have an America-lite now where we are embarrassed by our sons?" [Fox & Friends, 4/22/10, 4/23/10]
Kilmeade Reacts To Bloomberg's Park51 Support With Anti-Muslim Rant. On the August 25 edition of the show, Kilmeade played video of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's statement that "Islam did not attack the World Trade Center, Al Qaeda did. To implicate all of Islam for the actions of a few who twisted a great religion is unfair and un-American." Kilmeade responded:
KILMEADE: That's one way of looking at it, you could say just for a few. Those few have us bogged down really in two wars, one of which, I guess, is concluding. And then we have those few people in Yemen and those few people in Somalia and those few people that blew up in Madrid, and those few people that -- those bus bombings in London. Besides those few, I don't really see the problem. [Fox & Friends, 8/25/10]
Fox & Friends Shows Map Of 9-11 Victims' "Body Parts Found 348 Feet" From Proposed Islamic Center. On the September 10 edition of the show, Kilmeade reacted to a report that Donald Trump had offered to buy the site of the proposed Park51 community center by saying, "Let me just give you a reality check, because the [New York] Post did one -- and got this map, and it's a, to me, it's a very sad map, but a telling map, of the recovered body parts and remains of those who lost their lives on 9-11, almost nine years to the day." Fox & Friends then showed a map of Lower Manhattan with dots to represent recovered remains from the 9-11 attacks, with arrows pointing to them, emanating from the proposed Park51 building site. [Fox & Friends, 9/10/10]
Fox & Friends Suggests Oil Rig Was "Sabotage[d]" In Order To "Try And Pull Drilling." On the May 3 broadcast, Fox News contributor Dana Perino said of the BP oil spill: "I'm not trying to introduce a conspiracy theory, but was this deliberate? You know, you have to wonder ... if there was sabotage involved." Later, during the same broadcast, Fox Business host Eric Bolling said: "The question is ... why the delay in the response? You guys were pointing out, nine days before it was even addressed, 12 days before he made a formal comment. The question is: Did they let this thing leak? I mean, oh, BP said maybe a thousand barrels a day, it went to 5,000. Did they let it leak a little bit and say, boy, I don't know. The conspiracy theorists would say, 'Maybe they'd let it leak for a while, and then they addressed the issue.'" Bolling added: "It would be a humongous accusation, and probably the net result would be no different, but if they're going to try and pull drilling, that may be the way they do it." [Fox & Friends, 5/3/10, 5/3/10]
Fox & Friends: The Discovery Channel "Gunman's Extreme Environmentalist Views May Have Been Sparked By An Al Gore Documentary? Where's The Media Outrage There?" On the September 2 edition of the show, Kilmeade teased an segment by saying: "Now we know the gunman's extreme environmentalist views may have been sparked by an Al Gore documentary? Where's the media outrage there? Would they be silent if the tables were turned with a different documentary with a different point of view?" Later in the show, Carlson noted that "he apparently became some sort of an environmentalist junkie after he watched vice president -- former vice president's movie, Inconvenient Truth [sic], Al Gore's movie. He became a radical environmentalist." ["Fox & Friends, 9/2/10]
Fox & Friends Celebrate Earth Day By Spreading "Climategate" Misinformation. On the April 22 edition of the show, Carlson began a segment on Earth Day by saying, "Happy Earth Day, America. Today, we're taking a look back at how the mainstream media covered and didn't cover 'Climategate.' That was the release of all those emails exposing that scientists held back data that discredits theories on global warming." Fox & Friends also hosted Media Research Center's Brent Bozell to falsely claim "there were campaigns to manipulate the data in their favor. There was a campaign to destroy evidence that would go against them -- to manipulate that evidence. And there's a campaign to bully journalists to not listen to critics of this." Carlson claimed the allegations are "real" because "big chief people resigned as a result." [Fox & Friends, 4/22/10]
Kilmeade: Americans Wouldn't Be Upset About Lawmakers' Copenhagen Trip, If "We Believed" In "Global Warming." On the January 26 edition of the show, Carlson reacted to a story that lawmakers were attending the Copenhagen Climate Conference by claiming, "Americans wouldn't be so upset about it if they actually got something huge done," to which Kilmeade responded, "Or if we believed there was global warming." [Fox & Friends, 1/26/10]
Doocy: "How Can There Be Global Warming If It's Snowing And It's Bitterly Cold?" On the February 9 broadcast, Carlson said she wanted to talk about the "dichotomy" created by "big snowstorms" occurring while "the Obama administration [is] talking about creating a new federal office to study global warming." Doocy added: "It's interesting, though, given the fact that the weather is so rotten right now, and people are going, 'How can there be global warming if it's snowing and it's bitterly cold?' " [Fox & Friends, 2/9/10]
Doocy Attempts To Conceal Angle's Position On Social Security In "Softball" Interview. On the June 14 edition of the show, Fox & Friends hosted Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle. During the interview, Doocy asked Angle, "Perhaps it's misinformation or mischaracterization, but some have said that you are out to get rid of Social Security. That's not true, right?" Angle replied by calling the allegation "nonsense" despite the fact that her website advocated "transition[ing] out" Social Security. [Fox & Friends, 6/14/10]
Varney Roots For GOP To "Win Big," Says That Could Lead To "Significant Economic Expansion." On the October 29 broadcast, Carlson noted that Varney "believe[s] if Republicans take control of the House, that it could restore confidence in private enterprise." Varney agreed:
VARNEY: That's my opinion, OK? I'm freely expressing an opinion here. If the Republicans win big on Tuesday, you know there will be no big new spending program, there will be no cap and trade, there will be no card check, you could probably roll back some of these onerous regulations that are now being imposed on business. But above all, you may infuse confidence into the private sector. Private enterprise may be released from the shackles of the Obama administration and released to put to work all the money that they've got. You could see significant economic expansion. [Fox & Friends, 10/29/10]
Fox & Friends Aggressively Promotes GOP "Pledge To America." On the September 23 broadcast, Fox & Friends' coverage of the GOP's "Pledge to America" consisted almost entirely of supportive conservatives and Republicans. Fox & Friends provided a "point-counterpoint" which featured three Republicans who supported the pledge and featured an interview with Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) in which Carlson said, "I guess the Democrats can't say that the Republicans are the 'Party of No' anymore." [Fox & Friends, 9/23/10]
Carlson Advises McMahon To "Remind Voters, Starting Today," That Blumenthal "Lied About Vietnam." On the August 11 edition of Fox & Friends, Carlson said to GOP Senate candidate Linda McMahon: "Don't you have to remind voters, starting today," that Democratic candidate Richard Blumenthal "lied about Vietnam?" [Fox & Friends, 8/11/10]
After Parroting GOP Talking Points, Meek Tells Doocy He "Sounds Like" Rubio; Doocy Responds By Airing A Clip Of Rubio. During an interview with Democratic Senate candidate Kendrick Meek, Doocy parroted GOP talking points on the Bush tax cuts and small businesses. Meek responded by saying, "You sound like [GOP Senate candidate] Marco Rubio there for a minute." Later in the segment, Doocy said to Meek, "You just mentioned a moment ago Rubio -- you said I sounded like him" before airing a clip of Rubio discussing job creation. [Fox & Friends, 10/7/10]
Kilmeade: "What We're Saying Is, 'Get Out. Stay Out.' " During a discussion of Arizona's immigration law on the April 28 edition of Fox & Friends, Kilmeade responded to guest Richard Florida's statement that the law "looks bad for our image internationally" by stating: "Does it really look bad for us? I mean, in Saudi Arabia, you cross into that country, you get in jail. Over in Iran, you're detained indefinitely. Over in Cuba, you're tossed into jail. What we're saying is, 'Get out. Stay Out.' " [Fox & Friends, 4/28/10]
Fox & Friends Runs With Absurd "Estimate" That "2,158 [Are] Killed By Illegals Every Year." On May 6, Fox & Friends displayed an on-screen graphic promoting a Family Security Matters estimate that "2,158 killed by illegals every year." But that statistic was derived from completely baseless assumptions about immigrants' crime rates. Actual studies have found that immigrants in general are less likely to be incarcerated and that there is no evidence that undocumented immigrants commit a disproportionate amount of crime. [Fox & Friends, 5/6/10]
Fox & Friends Calls Calderon's Criticism Of AZ Law "Insulting," A "Gigantic Lie," And An "Outrage To This Country." On the May 21 edition of Fox & Friends, Doocy accused Mexican President Felipe Calderón of telling "a gigantic lie" by saying that Arizona's new immigration law introduces racial profiling into law enforcement. However, law enforcement officers have also expressed this concern and legal experts have rejected the claim that modifications made to the law eliminate the risk of racial profiling. [Fox & Friends, 5/21/10]
Fox & Friends Dismisses The 14th Amendment As The "Anchor Baby Amendment." On the August 4 edition of Fox & Friends, co-host Clayton Morris stated: "Republicans want Congress to work on some other form of Constitutional control, that being the 14th Amendment to United States Constitution -- basically the anchor baby amendment." The term "anchor baby" was described by the Rocky Mountain News as "derogatory, even racist, because it implies that Hispanics are having children as a way to stay in the U.S." [Fox & Friends, 8/4/10; Media Matters, 2/17/10]
Fox & Friends Hosts Anti-Immigrant Leader To Claim That If DREAM Act Passes, Americans Will "Lose The Country." On November 30, Fox & Friends hosted William Gheen, president of the anti-immigrant Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, to attack the DREAM Act. During the segment, Gheen said, "The DREAM Act amnesty, or nightmare act amnesty, is a political teddy bear with a hand grenade in it." Gheen later claimed that if the bill passes, "You can kiss the borders of the United States good-bye," and that Americans will "lose the country." [Fox & Friends, 11/30/10]
Johnson Exploits Bill Clinton's Heart Surgery To Stoke Fears About Health Care Rationing. On the February 12 Fox & Friends, Kilmeade asked, "So if the Democrats' health care reform had gone through, would President Clinton have received the stents?" Fox News legal analyst Peter Johnson Jr. replied that "best practices" for medical procedures could be determined by government "comparative effectiveness" studies. Johnson further stated, "If the new standard is, save money, best practices, does President Clinton -- or you or I who needs it -- get the stent under that new regimen of health care effectiveness?" [Fox & Friends, 2/12/10]
Fox & Friends Asks: Could "Health Reform Create a Welfare State?" On the March 9 edition of Fox & Friends, on-screen text stated: "Medicaid Mayhem; Health Reform Create A Welfare State?" [Fox & Friends, 3/9/10]:
Johnson: Putting Sick Dogs Down "Sounds Like" Death Panels In Health Care Reform. On the March 12 Fox & Friends, Johnson stated during a discussion of pet health care: "You hear, oh, the dog got put down. At some point they say, well, we're going to put down the dog. We just -- we can't pay to keep the dog alive, or it's just not worth it to keep the dog going. Are we going to start applying that to humans? Are we going to start putting the dog down?" After a guest asked, "Are you talking about a death panel?" Johnson replied, "Well, it sounds like it, doesn't it? I mean, it sounds like, doesn't it?" [Fox & Friends, 3/12/10]
Kilmeade: "Almost Everyone Agrees" With Stupak That Senate Bill Allows For Federal Funding Of Abortion. On the March 16 edition of Fox & Friends, Kilmeade falsely stated that "almost everyone agrees" with Rep. Bart Stupak that the Senate health care bill allows for federal funding of abortions. [Fox & Friends, 3/16/10]
Fox & Friends: CBO "Lies" About The "Cost" Of Health Care Reform. On March 26, Doocy introduced a segment with Amity Shlaes by stating: "The president and Democratic leaders in Congress sold the $940 billion health care bill as legislation that will lower the deficit. But our next guest says it just doesn't add up, and it amounts to a bunch of lies." Carlson began the interview with Shlaes by asking: "Say it isn't so. The CBO is full of liars?" Shlaes went on to say that CBO "is like a codependent in an alcoholic household." [Fox & Friends, 3/26/10]