Marco Rubio went on Fox News and embarrassed himself while trying to attack President Obama.
Sen. Rubio was talking about Donald Trump on Fox and Friends, but he couldn’t resist attacking President Obama.
Here’s what’s so important to me. The presidency of the United States is not just the top governmental official. It is the leader of our people and our nation as well. It is important that to conduct the presidency has to be done in a dignified way, not with a level of class. I don’t think the way he’s behaved over the last few weeks is either dignified or worthy of the office he seeks.
We already have a president now that has no class. I mean we have a president now that does selfie stick videos, that invites YouTube stars there, people that you know, eat cereal out of a bathtub that accuses his. You just saw the interview he did right now where he goes on comedy shows to talk about something as serious as Iran. The list goes on and on.
Rubio has rendered himself unelectable to the same voters that the Republican Party was hoping to sell his candidacy to. By ranting against selfie sticks, The Daily Show, and YouTube stars, Rubio sounded like the senior citizens who make up the majority of the Republican Party.
Rubio’s attack on Obama was embarrassing because it demonstrated how out of touch with the majority of America the Senator from Florida is. President Obama is continuing to pile up victories as his presidency is on its way to ending on a very high note. Obama’s personal approval rating has never fallen to the depths that George W. Bush experienced.
Marco Rubio’s attack simply was not based in reality.
By doing things like talking about important issues on shows like The Daily Show where the audience isn’t all political junkies, Obama has broadened his appeal and reached people who don’t watch cable news. Marco Rubio doesn’t understand that this is a good thing. One would be hard-pressed to find a single classless thing that President Obama has done while in office.
Rubio reminds of another Republican, who ran for the White House on a promise of restoring honor and dignity to the White House. George W. Bush won his election and then invaded Iraq on a lie, tortured innocent people in the name of the American people, bungled a federal response to a natural disaster and crashed the economy.
If the alternatives are Republican “dignity and class” as typified by George W. Bush, or a recovered economy a nation no longer engaged in perpetual war, the American people are better off with Obama and his selfie stick.
Benghazisteria has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it? For going on three years now, Fox News and the minions of madness the right-wing adores have been harping on a single incident in Libya to keep the low-information voters that are their base focused on anything but Republican policies.
Michael Morell, former deputy director and one-time acting director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has finally come forward to school the ill-informed on the realities of how the intelligence community works and why the hype over Benghazi is just that: Hype.
In a scathing article for Politico, Morell takes the Benghazi boneheads to the woodshed, offering the real-world view of what so many have distorted for political gain:
“Like clockwork, every several weeks, someone discovers a new document that, to their minds, “proves” that what the administration and the intelligence community have been saying about Benghazi is a bunch of lies. But time and again these documents don’t add up. They don’t show what the pundits think they show—and the Benghazi broadsides miss their mark anew.”
Morell’s opening paragraph is a preview into what reasonable people have understood from the beginning of the FBI/CIA investigation and what conservatives refuse to acknowledge in their mission to discredit Hillary Clinton ahead of the 2016 presidential election:
Intelligence reports are just that, reports. When information comes in, a report is generated. That report is vetted, cross-referenced and added to other relevant reports. The end result is a conclusion, which in the Benghazi case, don’t EVER support the Fox News propaganda and speculation.
Morell gives an excellent example:
“Here is a recent example: Earlier last week a handful of number of news organizations, including Fox News, breathlessly reported that they had just gotten their hands on a Defense Intelligence Agency report—acquired through a FOIA request by Judicial Watch—that they say proves that the government knew very soon after the attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi, Libya on 9/11/12 that they had been planned ten or more days in advance. These news organizations suggest that this document puts the lie to what I and other current and former intelligence officials have been saying—that there was little planning before the attacks.”
So…they lied. How unusual. Typically Fox News is so very trustworthy.
The Benghazi “outrage has built on three main points: The administration knew it was terrorism and blamed a video, they could have saved the four men who died and instead ignored them, and that Susan Rice engaged in some sort of “cover up” to hide the truth that Hillary Clinton was aware of the threat long before it happened.
All three of those points have been debunked, numerous times, including by GOP House and Senate reports. That doesn’t hinder the right from spreading more lies, every time a new “report” comes out that they can speculate on, in an attempt to take votes from Hillary’s upcoming presidential bid.
Morell again debunks the Susan Rice conspiracy theory in his article:
“They say DIA’s report was issued on September 16th—the same day that former U.N. ambassador Susan Rice appeared on five Sunday talk shows, so she must have known before she went on the air, right? Wrong. The DIA report was issued hours after her final TV appearance that day. Some accounts, including the first piece written on the DIA report by Judicial Watch, erroneously say that the report was issued on September 12th, four days before Rice was on national television. They simply misread the report.”
That on bit of truth in and of itself takes most of the wind out of the conservative sails. How about the YouTube video?
While there are no shortage of new arguments on this old subject, there are also some old ones that resurface on a regular basis. One is the debate on whether an anti-Islam YouTube video played any role in sparking the Benghazi attacks. The short answer is that we still don’t know with absolute certainty. Intelligence community analysts in the days immediately after the attack said that the attackers were probably motivated by an attack that happened in Cairo earlier in the day. We know that that attack was motivated at least in part by the video. However the analysts also said that the attack in Libya might have been motivated by Al Qaeda leader Ayman Zawahiri’s call just two days before the Benghazi attack for avenging the death of the terrorist Abu Yaya al-Libi earlier in the summer.
The most strident voices on Benghazi ridicule the notion that a video might have played any role. But among those who have argued that the video may have been a factor include the FBI, who told the House Intelligence Committee in February 2014 that the attacks were ordered in response the YouTube video and to Zawahiri’s call for avenging the death of al-Libi. You can read that on page 18 of the House Intelligence Committee’s report on Benghazi.
So the administration citing the YouTube video as a possible cause wasn’t some sort of cover up, it was the information they were given, information that to this day is still considered valid.
In one beautiful article, with nothing but logic, reason and fact, Michael Morell, who also says Bush and Cheney lied about nukes and Al Qaeda in Iraq, puts the Benghazi conspiracy to bed.
Will that be the end of it?
Of course not. In some dark basement as we speak some conservative dimwit is pasting a picture of Hillary Clinton dragging the lifeless body of Ambassador Stevens through the streets of Benghazi.
A new study has found that Fox News is hurting the Republican Party by brainwashing millions of angry conservatives with misinformation.
In a new study of the Fox News effect by Bruce Bartlett, research was collected that demonstrated the negative impact of Fox News on media and politics.
Bartlett described what the founding of Fox News first meant to conservatives, and how it shifted into an act of self-brain washing, “Like someone dying of thirst in the desert, conservatives drank heavily from the Fox waters. Soon, it became the dominant -and in many cases, virtually the only – major news source for millions of Americans. This has had profound political implications that are only starting to be appreciated. Indeed, it can almost be called self-brainwashing – many conservatives now refuse to even listen to any news or opinion not vetted through Fox, and to believe whatever appears on it as the gospel truth.”
Mr. Bartlett documented Fox News’ extreme rightward shift after 9/11 and how the network went from tilting conservative to flat out misinformation and propaganda. The study also sums of years of research that points to Fox News viewers as being the least informed media consumers.
Although this arrangement unquestionably aids Republicans in winning elections and votes in Congress, it is not without its downsides. One is that Fox now exercises such powerful control over the GOP that it has become the party’s kingmaker in presidential primaries.56 Indeed, during the 2012 election cycle, a number of aspirants for the Republican nomination had been paid Fox commentators, including Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee. And woe to the Republican who runs afoul of Fox’s top brass or ignores their advice, as Mitt Romney did on one occasion in 2012. Fox is now so important in GOP primaries that candidates must put aside pressing campaign concerns when summoned to a Fox interview, where any error is magnified within the Republican bubble.
Another problem is that Republican voters get so much of their news from Fox, which cheerleads whatever their candidates are doing or saying, that they suffer from wishful thinking and fail to see that they may not be doing as well as they imagine, or that their ideas are not connecting
outside the narrow party base.
Bartlett’s conclusion is that the same attributes that make Fox a strong cable network are harming the Republican Party.
There is little doubt that the Republican Party is influenced by two interests. The corporations and conservative billionaires who fund their campaigns and Fox News. A Republican candidate can be made or broken by Fox News, but the network also pushes Republicans to an unelectable right-wing position in presidential elections.
Viewers have been brainwashed by a combination of misinformation and constant confirmation of their own biases. Fox News doesn’t “report” reality. The result is that millions of Fox News Republicans expect their candidates to carry out what they see on television, which has led to a party of non-reality based voters supporting delusional candidates.
The impact is felt on a broken legislative process where for one party there is no middle and opposing the President at all costs has become a path to political victory.
The conclusion is unmistakable. Fox News has not only broken journalism. The conservative news network is also destroying the Republican Party.
STELTER: Here’s what almost everybody missed about the panel discussion. The president was talking about what he called a 40-year effort to stir up class divisions. FOX, of course, has only been around 15 years. Let’s go back to the original video, but let’s let it keep playing, so Obama finishes his thought.
FOX only played this part of the clip once. It was in a news report by Howie Kurtz. Notice that Obama is talking about the whole news media’s responsibility to make sure the middle class and poor Americans know — I’m sorry — what middle class and rich Americans know what it’s like to be poor.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: And that becomes an entire narrative, right, that gets worked up. And very rarely do you hear an interview of a waitress, which is much more typical, who’s raising a couple of kids and is doing everything right, but still can’t pay the bills.
And so if we’re going to change how John Boehner and Mitch McConnell think, we’re going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we’re going to have to change how the media reports on these issues and how people’s impressions of what it’s like to struggle in this economy looks like and how budgets connect to that.
And that’s a — it’s a hard process, because that requires a much broader conversation than typically we have on the nightly news.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
STELTER: He called for a broader conversation, but FOX ended up having a very small conversation.
Anyway, that’s “Red News/Blue News” for this week.
It would be nice to think that the media is finally catching on to Fox News’ selective editing tricks, but outside of the cable news competition at CNN and MSNBC, most of the mainstream press doesn’t bother to call out their lies.
If more members of the media would stand up to the Fox News propaganda machine, not only would the news be more trustworthy, viewers would be better informed. The bulk of the press is terrified of Fox News, so they will never directly criticize, debunk, or call out the Republican talking point network.
Brian Stelter of CNN took a few minutes of his show to debunk a major Fox News lie of omission, and if more members of his profession did the same, the Fox News blight could be removed from journalism.
The Fox News host is confused why Hispanic Americans don’t like the GOP. Fusion’s Jorge Ramos sets him straight
Last night, Sean Hannity spoke to Fusion host Jorge Ramos about why the Hispanic community refuses to back Republican candidates who share their cultural identity like Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz.
He began by asking Ramos why we don’t hear much about how historic a Rubio or Cruz presidency would be. Ramos answered that, on the one hand, both senators are choosing to follow Barack Obama in not making his race an issue in the election, and on the other, both Rubio and Cruz are Republicans of Cuban descent, whereas the majority of Latinos are of Mexican descent and vote Democratic.
A slightly confused Hannity replied by saying that he doesn’t believe in identity politics, only to characterize Latinos as people who share conservative values he identifies with: “hard work, family values, conservative on social issues, deep faith, love of country.”
Ramos replied that “it’s immigration,” because “Latinos cannot see beyond immigration right now. It’s a very simple concept, Sean — people won’t vote for a candidate who will deport your father, your friends, your colleagues, and your students.”
Hannity detailed the draconian immigration policies of Mexico and Australia, then asked Ramos why it is that if you enter Mexico illegally from a Central American country, you’re immediately thrown in jail or deported.
“It’s awful,” Ramos replied, confounding Hannity’s expectations, “how they treat Central Americans in Mexico.”
Ramos then applauded America as being “an exceptional country, an immigrant country,” which caused Hannity to try talking over him, repeatedly saying “it’s not an illegalimmigrant country.”
Ramos went on to discuss the billions of dollars that immigrants — including undocumented ones — contribute to the United States economy, but all Hannity wanted to talk about were the problems that he believes they cause. “There’s the criminal element!” he said, before returning to the topic at hand — the possibility that the Republicans might have a Hispanic nominee for president.
“What I’m saying,” Ramos tried to conclude, “is that if Cruz and Rubio choose not to support immigration reform,” but Hannity cut him off and again appealed to identity politics.
“Even if it’s the first Hispanic American president?” he asked. “Wow.”
Geraldo Rivera tore the triad of dunces on Fox & Friends a new one over their enthusiasm for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday’s edition.
Co-hosts Brian Kilmeade, Steve Doocey and Elisabeth Hasselback tried all the usual loudmouth bullying tactics employed at Fox to defend Netanyahu, the man they wish we had as president instead of Barack Obama. But they never stood a chance against Rivera. After all, he’s the one who pioneered these verbal take-no-prisoners tactics back in the 1980s with his talk show, Geraldo.
Rivera acknowledged that although he considers Kilmeade, Doocey, and Hasselback to be his “dear friends,” he also knows “that we disagree in a fundamental way about U.S./Israel policy.” And contrary to Fox’s hysteria over Obama’s lack of a congratulatory phone call or message to Netanyahu, Geraldo would take Obama’s non-response a step further.
“If I were President Obama, I would have sent Bibi Netanyahu a congratulatory postcard by snail mail on a form written ‘congratulations on your recent election.’”
But, the ever-classy Steve Doocey inquired, “Why? Is that the classy thing to do?” But before Doocey could get a word in edgewise, Rivera steamrolled him.
“It is the appropriate thing to do to someone who has absolutely insulted the American constitutional system, by coming here uninvited [by the President].”
Rivera then kept going over Doocey, Kilmeade’s and Hasselback’s protests.
“We can debate who and how that invitation was engineered, but it caused a division in the U.S./Israeli relationship that has never existed before. It has carved the Congress of the United States in half, it has in many ways unsettled and made unstable that relationship.”
And then Rivera slammed Netanyahu’s racist campaign, though he doesn’t mention how it seems an awful lot like GOP campaigning here in the U.S.
“And then, for Bibi Netanyahu to run the campaign in a way that I believe was, to its core, made a racist appeal to Israeli hard-right voters to come out because these droves of these Palestinians are going to vote!”
” You can’t force the people of Israel who just elected me by a wide margin to bring them peace and security, to secure the state of Israel, to accept terms that would endanger the very survival of the state of Israel.”
But Rivera declared that Netanyahu has mistreated the Palestinian people all along, and has never had even the slightest intention of treating them fairly or hearing them out.
“Bibi Netanyahu revealed his true self in this election. Not only in his contempt for Arab-Israeli voters, but also with his unequivocal statement that there will never be a two-state solution as long as he is prime minister.”
Rivera added that given how Netanyahu has treated them, the Palestinians in Gaza have every right to be angry:
“He[Netanyahu] bragged to me, Brian. He bragged to me that all he gave in his first term as prime minister to the Palestinians was a casino in the town of Jericho. He was so gleeful about that, about how little he has yielded to them. These people have been under occupation since 1967. You wonder why[the Gazans] they are radicalized?
Doocey and Kilmeade then tried to interject something about Gaza firing rockets. But Geraldo nipped that in the bud, and snapped:
“What is ‘Gaza?’ Gaza is an isolated, one-mile-wide strip, it’s a prison.”
Hopefully, the folks at Fox & Friends have learned a lesson here: Don’t mess with Rivera.
Geraldo calls out Netanyahu on Fox & Friends.
Watch Fox bullies get smacked down by an even bigger blowhard: Geraldo Rivera. “Netanyahu has absolutely insulted our constitutional system.”
P.S. Steve Doocey, this writer’s dearly-departed Grammie often declared that if you use the word “classy,” you probably don’t have any.
Conservatives love free speech — when it involves denigrating entire segments of the population with whose existence they do not agree, or when “Christians” choose to spout hateful diatribes — but Fox News contributor Tucker Carlson demonstrated clearly on Thursday that “free speech” outside of hate speech does not exist in the right-wing world.
When a blogger for Carlson’s Daily Caller wrote a piece criticizing Fox News for not doing enough to oppose “immigration and amnesty,” Carlson quickly axed the column.
“I wrote a piece attacking Fox for not being the opposition on immigration and amnesty — for filling up the airwaves with reports on ISIS and terrorism, and not fulfilling their responsibility of being the opposition on amnesty and immigration…. I posted it at 6:30 in the morning. When I got up, Tucker had taken it down. He said, ‘We can’t trash Fox on the site. I work there.’”
When Kaus told Carlson that he needed to be able to write about Fox, Carlson told him that this exclusion was non-negotiable.
“He said it was a rule, and he wouldn’t be able to change that rule. So I told him I quit,” Kaus explained. “I just don’t see how you can put out a publication with that kind of giant no-go area. It’s not like we’re owned by Joe’s Muffler Shop, so we just can’t write about Joe’s Muffler shop.”
“Mickey is a great guy, and one of the few truly independent thinkers anywhere. I’m sorry to see him go,” Carlson said of his writer’s departure. He did not explain how he can simultaneously appreciate a “free-thinker” and refuse to allow that person to freely report on issues.
Kaus will now publish his work exclusively on Kausfiles. He says that Fox News’ influence over the Caller was just one small example of an overwhelming problem with conservative media.
“It’s a larger problem on the right: Everybody is scared of Fox,” he said. “Fox is their route to a high-profile public image and in some cases stardom. Just to be on a Fox show is a big deal. And I think that’s a problem on the right, Fox’s monopoly on star-making power.”
It’s important to note that Kaus was not critical of Fox News’ lies, its penchant for demonizing groups who are simply fighting for civil rights, or anything legitimate — he simply does not feel Fox goes far enough. Imagine if he pointed out that more than half of statements made on Fox are “Mostly False,” “False,” or “Pants on Fire,” according to Politifact (Joe’s Muffler Shop, on the other hand, has a 4.5 star rating on Yelp, while Joe himself is repeatedly praised for his honesty).
Carlson’s refusal to allow criticism of his employer begs the question: If he is repressing criticism of Fox, how can anything on his site be considered legitimate by anyone? Can even conservatives trust a site that is willing to censor all criticism of an organization — legitimate or not?
But if a writer for a propaganda outlet can’t be critical of another propaganda outlet’s lack of propaganda on specific topics, “freedumb” is dead.
The Fox News host has said he was in a “war zone” that apparently no American correspondent reached.
After NBC News suspended anchor Brian Williams for erroneously claiming that he was nearly shot down in a helicopter while covering the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly went on a tear. On his television show, the top-rated cable news anchor declared that the American press isn’t “half as responsible as the men who forged the nation.” He bemoaned the supposed culture of deception within the liberal media, and he proclaimed that the Williams controversy should prompt questioning of other “distortions” by left-leaning outlets. Yet for years, O’Reilly has recounted dramatic stories about his own war reporting that don’t withstand scrutiny—even claiming he acted heroically in a war zone that he apparently never set foot in.
O’Reilly has repeatedly told his audience that he was a war correspondent during the Falklands war and that he experienced combat during that 1982 conflict between England and Argentina. He has often invoked this experience to emphasize that he understands war as only someone who has witnessed it could. As he once put it, “I’ve been there. That’s really what separates me from most of these other bloviators. I bloviate, but I bloviate about stuff I’ve seen. They bloviate about stuff that they haven’t.”
Fox News and O’Reilly did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Here are instances when O’Reilly touted his time as a war correspondent during the Falklands conflict:
In his 2001 book, The No Spin Zone: Confrontations With the Powerful and Famous in America, O’Reilly stated, “You know that I am not easily shocked. I’ve reported on the ground in active war zones from El Salvador to the Falklands.”
Conservative journalist Tucker Carlson, in a 2003 book, described how O’Reilly answered a question during a Washington panel discussion about media coverage of the Afghanistan war: “Rather than simply answer the question, O’Reilly began by trying to establish his own bona fides as a war correspondent. ‘I’ve covered wars, okay? I’ve been there. The Falklands, Northern Ireland, the Middle East. I’ve almost been killed three times, okay.'”
In a 2004 column about US soldiers fighting in Iraq, O’Reilly noted, “Having survived a combat situation in Argentina during the Falklands war, I know that life-and-death decisions are made in a flash.”
In 2008, he took a shot at journalist Bill Moyers, saying, “I missed Moyers in the war zones of [the] Falkland conflict in Argentina, the Middle East, and Northern Ireland. I looked for Bill, but I didn’t see him.”