U.S. Politics

Benjamin Netanyahu Realizes He Needs Obama and Democrats After All



Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, after doing everything in his power to antagonize Democrats in concert with his Republican pals, seems to have belatedly realized that needs President Obama and Democrats in Congress, and he’s moving to make amends.

Not only is Netanyahu visiting Washington D.C. Monday – not to go behind the President’s back to Congress – but to actually talk to him, but he belatedly and conveniently realized that his nominee for public diplomacy chief, Ran Baratz, had referred to President Obama as an anti-Semite and said Secretary of State John Kerry had the intellect of a pre-teenager.

Now Netanyahu says such thinking is “totally unacceptable and in no way reflect my positions or the policies of the government of Israel,” and he is reconsidering his choice of Baratz, as well he should, since the Likud party is not likely to let anyone forget this and other things Baratz has said, though Netanyahu’s cabinet gets to vote, and the prime minister has not outright rejected Baratz.

Baratz had posted the comments on Facebook and has apologized on Facebook for “the hurtful remarks” and in an email to The New York Times explained that “what I most regret is using the word anti-Semitism in relation to President Obama.” He said, “It’s not true and I deeply regret having done so.”

Aha! Right? A simple oversight? All’s good? Not so fast! As Barak Ravid wrote at Haaretz yesterday, “Israeli journalist Ben Caspit reported in the Maariv daily way back in August that Netanyahu had invited Baratz to a meeting regarding precisely this matter” and that therefore,

Netanyahu has three months to size Baratz up, to go through his past with a fine-toothed comb, and to check every mention of his name on the internet. A pretty natural, basic and necessary procedure in 2015. Netanyahu didn’t do this, and we can see the result.

Ravid is willing to accept Netanyahu at his word that he was unaware of Baratz’s “Facebook meditations” but wonders how the Prime Minister could not have been made aware of how their author felt on these matters when the two met face to face.

As Ravid writes, on the contrary, “If anything – we should assume that Baratz’s views on Rivlin, Obama, the media and others were what brought him this far.”

Timing-wise, the whole thing seems on a par with Jeb Bush’s presidential campaign. Fortunately for Netanyahu, he is dealing with a man, Barack Obama, who is far more mature than he is, and who will not let U.S.-Israeli relations be torpedoed by someone Ravid refers to as “an ignoramus in anything relating to U.S.-Israel relations.”

I think that term could be used of Netanyahu as well.

Netanyahu had made his own displeasure felt early on with Democrats who supported the Iran nuclear deal, as though trying to take control of American foreign policy wasn’t enough of a slap in the face.

The New York Times reminds us that Democrats “were left off the guest list of the annual Rosh Hoshana reception at the Israeli Embassy in Washington,” and other Democrats experienced various other forms of displeasure extended by pro-Israel groups.

Now all that seems to be coming to an end and Netanyahu’s appears to see the need for some fence-mending. While still not giving up on Baratz, Netanyahu has sent out Ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer – whom you might remember was the guy Netanyahu also employed to throw John Boehner under the bus – to invite “prominent Democrats…to a dinner to commemorate Yitzhak Rabin, the Israeli prime minister who was assassinated 20 years ago.”

And the Times reports that even the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or Aipac, the pro-Israeli group that spent millions to oppose the Iran deal, “appears to be reaching out tentatively to the Democratic lawmakers it attacked for backing the agreement.” Of course, what Aipac wants is not détente but control.

Remember. These Democrats were attacked for insisting that America had a right to control its own foreign policy. This is a big deal, and Democrats should never forget what this was about. Netanyahu obviously if belatedly has remembered who really needs who in this relationship. It is not Israel that is about to give the U.S. a $40 billion aid package, after all.

Obama has triumphed so far over all his enemies, including Benjamin Netanyahu, and you can imagine he will be more than willing to make the nature of the U.S.-Israeli relationship very clear before he picks up a pen to sign that $40 billion check.

Uri Misgav wrote in an op-ed at Haaretz yesterday that “Anyone who was shocked by the words” of “Israeli Tea Party Type” Ran Baratz, “doesn’t understand where he is living,” and you can be sure Obama was not surprised and knows exactly how Netanyahu still feels about him.

President Obama is being typically gracious in being willing to, at least publicly, overlook some of Netanyahu’s many gaffes and outright attacks, by meeting with him again. For the greater good he may be willing – at least publicly again – let bygones be bygones – but what many of us wouldn’t give to be a fly on the wall when the president and prime minister talk privately.

Hrafnkell Haraldsson

U.S. Politics

Putin Was Asked A Question About Obama, His Answer Will Drive Conservatives Crazy

Obama, Putin set for rare sit-down meeting: http://abcn.ws/1jptghP


Russian President Vladimir Putin was recently interviewed by Charlie Rose, who asked him a very delicate question about U.S. President Barack Obama. His answer is going to drive conservatives crazy.

In the Conservative Narrative of America – the fairy tale version of news and events promulgated by Fox News and their conservative politicos – President Obama is simultaneously a weak, tofu-eating liberal, and a Stalin-esque dictator out to crush American freedom under his angry Muslim fist. There is no internal challenge to explain the inherent contradiction in these two versions of Obama.

During an interview with Putin for 60 Minutes that aired Sunday night, Charlie Rose took the matter to the Russian premier. Rose asked Putin if he thinks Obama is weak, and Putin said no. Furthermore, Putin sounded considerably more human and contemplative than any U.S. conservative to whom Rose might have addressed the same questions. Here is the transcript of this section of the interview:

Charlie Rose: Let me ask you this, what do you think of President Obama? What’s your evaluation of him?

Vladimir Putin: I don’t think I’m entitled to give any views regarding the president. That’s up to the American people.

Rose: Do you think his activities in foreign affairs reflect a weakness?

Putin: I don’t think so at all. You see, here’s the thing, in any country– and in the United States, I believe this happens even more often than in any other country– foreign political factors are used for domestic political battles. There is a presidential campaign coming up, so they’re playing either the Russian card or some other.

Rose: Okay, but let me ask you this, do you think he listens to you?

Putin: Well, I think we listen to each other in a way, especially when it comes to something that doesn’t go counter to our own ideas about what we should and should not do.

Rose: Do you think he considers Russia, you said you’re not a superpower,  he considers Russia an equal and considers you an equal, which is the way you want to be treated?

Putin: (laughs) Well, you ask him. He’s your president. How could I know what he thinks?

How did we get to the point where the former-KGB, authoritarian leader of Russia can give a more balanced view of the U.S. president than his domestic political opponents?

The 60 Minutes interview comes at a time when U.S-Russia relations are at a post-Cold War low, and Putin is poised to address the United Nations over military intervention in Syria. Still the Russian leader managed more grace and diplomacy than the entire GOP clown car put together.

That’s unpleasant for Obama, but it’s far worse for Republicans, whose party is disintegrating around them.

U.S. Politics

Dick Cheney Caught Out in a Lie Too Brazen Even for Fox News


This weekend, Chris Wallace asked Dick Cheney whether he and George Bush had any responsibility for the growth of Iran’s nuclear program. Not really, Cheney said. That’s all on Obama:

“But the centrifuges went from zero to 5,000,” Wallace pressed.

“Well, they may well have gone but that happened on Obama’s watch, not on our watch,” Cheney replied.

“No, no, no,” Wallace said. “By 2009, they were at 5,000.”

“Right,” said Cheney, who seemed to be losing air from somewhere in his lower back. “But I think we did a lot to deal with the arms control problem in the Middle East.”

These guys wreck the economy, and then complain that Obama hasn’t fixed it fast enough. They blow a hole in the deficit, and then complain that Obama hasn’t quite filled it yet. They pursue a disastrous war in Iraq, and then complain that Obama ruined it all by not leaving a few more brigades behind. They twiddle their thumbs over Iran, and then complain that Obama’s nuclear deal isn’t quite to their liking.

It’s hard to believe that even their own supporters still listen to a word they say. And yet, somehow, conservative rage toward Obama for wrecking the country continues unabated. Truly, conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed.


U.S. Politics

Tea party and Trump supporters can’t accept people like Jorge Ramos and Barack Obama as Americans

attribution: JorgeRamos.com    |     American


Let’s start with the obvious. Given that the candidate himself has characterized Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists, we can’t be surprised that one of his partisans told Jorge Ramos, the most influential Latino journalist there is, to “get out of my country.” Ramos responded: “This is my country. I’m a U.S. citizen too.”  Clearly thrown by the idea that this man with a Spanish accent might actually be an American, the Trump supporter spluttered: “Well, whatever. No. Univision. No. It’s not about you.”  Ramos, able to form actual sentences in English, calmly replied, “It’s not about you.  It’s about the United States.” It’s not clear whether Trump’s rhetoric exacerbates this kind of bigotry, or simply attracts those who already possess it. Either way, he and his supporters are a perfect match.

At a press conference only a few minutes earlier, Trump himself had dismissed Ramos—and, by extension, his large Latino audience—with the insult: “Go back to Univision.” This was after the journalist asked a question about the candidate’s immigration plan without waiting to be called on. Trump’s insult sounded to many Latinos a lot like: “Go back to Mexico.” Ramos discussed the interaction here.

Beyond this incident, in just the past week or so we saw two brothers—one of whom stated that he was inspired by Mr. Trump—ambush a man they targeted as Latino, leaving him with a broken nose, “battered” arms and chest, and, just for kicks, a face full of urine. Trump, in response, offered that “it would be a shame….I will say that people who are following me are very passionate. They love this country and they want this country to be great again. They are passionate.” Indeed.

Keep reading, and we’ll take a closer look.

An array of hate was on display in the crowd at a recent Trump rally in Alabama, where neo-Confederate activists passed out flyers, a reporter heard a number of “off-color remarks about minorities,” and one especially enthusiastic gentleman couldn’t stop chanting “white power.” Speaking of white power, you remember former KKK grand wizard David Duke, right? He endorsed Trump, declaring that the Donald “understands the real sentiment of America.” By the way, Duke isn’t the only white supremacist, white nationalist, or Neo-Nazi jumping on Trump’s bandwagon. What does Trump say about all these cheeky rapscallions who think he’s the Great White Hope? When asked about Duke’s endorsement, Trump claimed he hadn’t heard of him. He then added, “people like me across the board. Everybody likes me.” Well, not quite everybody.

The hate we’ve been discussing here largely stems from white racial anxiety about our country’s demographic future, an anxiety that, as I’ve written elsewhere, we ignore at our own peril. In terms of electoral politics, these sentiments strongly resemble those that motivate the tea party.

In their extensively researched book, The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism, Vanessa Williamson and Theda Skocpol found that tea party members expressed a significant degree of racial animus, and that their positions on various policies followed. Tea party rhetoric defines Latinos and African-Americans as being outside the national community. Supporters expressed profound resentment over what they saw as government redistributing the wealth of “hard-working” (read: white) Americans to “undeserving” (read: black and brown people) takers. In another article, Skocpol summarized:

[Tea Party members] are overwhelmingly older, white, conservative-minded men and women who fear that “their country” is about to be lost to mass immigration and new extensions of taxpayer-funded social programs (like the Affordable Care Act) for low- and moderate-income working-aged people, many of whom are black or brown. Fiscal conservatism is often said to be the top grassroots Tea Party priority, but Williamson and I did not find this to be true.

Similarly, a study published by Florida State University sociologists in the journal Social Science Research found race-based anger to be a “distinct factor” pushing people to embrace the tea party, a factor that operated “largely independent” from actual ideology. Here’s more from this study:

The Tea Party movement is an outlet for mobilizing and expressing racialized grievances which have been symbolically magnified by the election of the nation’s first black president….The findings suggest that, among conservatives, racial resentment may be a more important determinate of membership in the Tea Party movement than hard-right political values….Conservatives who were more racially resentful were substantially more likely to claim Tea Party movement membership.

Certainly it is possible to say that one wants to “take our country back” without being motivated by racism. As conservative pundit Byron York rightly pointed out, Democrats from Al Gore to John Kerry to Howard Dean all used a version of that phrase during the George W. Bush administration. However, the tea partiers who talk incessantly about taking their country back aren’t just talking about ideology, as the research cited above makes clear. It’s not just the use of those words—it is what’s behind them, the hate we saw expressed in countless other ways by members of the tea party.

Racist anti-Obama signs.
attribution: The Colbert Report screenshot

The above is a compilation of signs from tea party rallies put together by the staff of The Colbert Report. Host Stephen Colbert noted that it took them “almost 15 seconds to put that together.” What they show is much more than a rejection of Barack Obama’s policies. They show both a profound degree of racism, as well as a rejection of Obama as an American. That’s why the tea party embraced birtherism for so long and so loudly. And which prominent individual has clung longest and most loudly to birtherism, right up to the present in fact? Donald Trump.

We didn’t constantly see signs expressing bigotry at Gore, Kerry, or Dean rallies. And that’s the difference. When the tea party talks about taking their country back, it’s about more than politics alone. Likewise, when Donald Trump talks about Mexican immigrants being rapists and criminals in order to gin up anger over undocumented immigrants, it’s about more than just concern regarding the rule of law. That anger—fueled by racial anxiety—is what we saw in the video where a “passionate,” “inspired” Trump supporter clearly saw Jorge Ramos as not American.

This isn’t just one guy, one video, and one insult. It provides another window into the soul of right-wing America, an entity so full of hate that almost any little scratch brings the bile right up and out of its mouth. You can see the hate on that Trump supporter’s face, and you can hear it in his voice. That hate fuels the tea party, and it fuels support for Donald Trump. It is, in fact, the very same hate. That hate may not motivate every single participant in those two movements, but their successes would be impossible without it.

Daily Kos Staff

U.S. Politics

Donald Trump: Blacks ‘Worse Than Just About Ever’ Because Of Obama (VIDEO)

Donald Trump speaking at CPAC 2011 in Washington, D.C. (Gage Skidmore/Flickr)
Donald Trump speaking at CPAC 2011 in Washington, D.C. (Gage Skidmore/Flickr)


Donald Trump is always opening his mouth and saying awful things, and his Sunday interview on ABC with Jonathan Karl was no different. This time, instead of being racist toward Mexican immigrants, Trump turned his attention to black Americans and what President Obama “hasn’t” done for us. He started off:

“He has set a very low bar and I think it’s a shame for the African-American people. And by the way, he has done nothing for African-Americans. You look at what’s going on, at their income levels, you look at what’s gone on with their youth.

I thought that he would be a great cheerleader for this country, I thought he would do a fabulous job for the African-American citizens of this country.”

Trump paused, then ranted on:

“He has done nothing. They are worse than just about ever, they have problems now in terms of unemployment numbers… Here you have a black president who has done very poorly for the African-Americans in this country.”

Excuse me, Mr. Trump? Just becoming president as a black man did a tremendous amount for Black America. After all, while sure, there’s no more segregation and there are plenty of black singers, actors and athletes, the political arena is still a definite uphill battle for people of color, and certainly nobody ever thought there would be a black president. We didn’t dare dream of seeing someone who looks like us occupying that particular position. So, the fact that Barack Obama achieved that at all is definitely doing something for Black America.

That isn’t all, either. President Obama has addressed the problem of police brutality against people of color, as well as the problem of the system of mass incarceration — though I highly doubt you even believe that those are actual problems in the first place. Anyway, I digress. On to the end of the interview, in which Trump expresses the delusion that he will somehow get votes from black people:

“I think I will win the black vote, I think I will win the Hispanic vote.”

Well, I’ve got news for you, Donald Trump. Being an open racist isn’t the way to get votes from minority populations. You’re delusional if you think Hispanic people will vote for you after you call all Mexican immigrants rapists, and after you’ve talked down to black people like you do in this interview, as if we’re charity cases for you to save with your billions.

Keep driving that clown car, Mr. Trump. Drive it right off a political cliff with your bigotry. You’ll ensure a victory for Democrats in 2016, and all you have to do is keep talking.

Watch video of the interview below:

U.S. Politics

Barack Obama’s Long Game

AP Photo.


Barack Obama is not a modest man, but when it comes to assessing his or any president’s place in the long American story, he has been heard to say, “We just try to get our paragraph right.” Yet the way a raft of recent events have broken sharply in his favor, Obama suddenly seems well on his way to writing a whole page—or at least a big, fat passage—in the history books.

From the Supreme Court decisions upholding his signature health care plan and the right of gay Americans to marry, to contested passage of fast track trade authority, the opening of normal diplomatic relations with Cuba and an international agreement to curtail Iran’s nuclear weapons program, Obama is on a policy and political roll that would have seem unimaginable to many in Washington only a few months ago.

“Obama may be singular as a president, not only because of his striking background,” says Kenneth Adelman, who was Ronald Reagan’s arms control negotiator with the Soviets three decades ago, and who has his doubts about the Iran deal. “It may turn out that unlike virtually any other president, his second term is actually better than his first.”

Rallying his cabinet in January in the wake of the Democratic Party’s decisive defeat in last fall’s midterm elections, Obama himself maintained, “Interesting stuff happens in the fourth quarter.” This president has always been something of a clutch player, but his command of recent events—from his soaring eulogy for the victims of the Charleston church massacre, to his commutation of more sentences for non-violent criminal offenders than any president since Franklin Roosevelt—goes a good way toward proving the prescience of his words.

For much of the last five years, it had seemed Obama’s peculiar misfortune that the biggest achievement of his time in office—the adoption of his health care plan—might also prove his biggest defeat, because of the bitter and unyielding political and legal backlash unleashed by its narrow passage on a strict partisan vote.

Simultaneously, Obama’s ability to take decisive unilateral action on foreign policy—often a source of succor and satisfaction to second-term presidents—seemed highly limited, if only because he remained saddled with the ugly aftermath of the long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the rise of the ISIL threat.

Not so long ago, much of the chattering class was reading the last rites over the Obama administration, and turning to the 2016 election as a test of whether anything would be left of the president’s legacy if a Republican succeeded him. That’s still an open question, of course. But the Court’s recent rulings and Obama’s own seemingly unplugged and swing-for-the-fences attitude on questions from race to criminal justice has given his presidency a sharply re-invigorated viability and relevance.

“It’s an unfinished chapter,” says presidential historian Richard Norton Smith, who is writing a new biography of Gerald Ford. “But he has already defied the second-term curse and the wisdom of just six months ago. ‘What can a president do if he doesn’t have either house of Congress?’ Well, guess what, he can reverse a 50, 60-year-old policy toward Cuba. But, more than that, he can still, even without the traditional televised Oval Office version of the bully pulpit, to a large degree set the terms of the national debate.”

The president’s very demeanor in his White House news conference on Thursday bespoke a renewed intensity and determination to make the most of the time he has left.  Much of the time, he fielded questions in a relaxed posture, leaning on the lectern with one elbow, but some of his answers were emphatic bordering on brusque. As the session wound down, he canvassed the East Room for more questions about the Iran agreement with a kind of “Hit-me-with-your-best-shot” bravado, as if to show how important he believes it to be. With a blithe air that belied the seriousness of the issue, he quoted that noted diplomat Ricky Ricardo to say that if Iran mined more uranium than it was supposed to, “They got some ‘splainin’ to do.”

“It is a measure of the times in which we live that we start the legacy discussion a year and a half before the end of a presidency,” says David Axelrod, Obama’s former longtime strategist. “But he’s had the most productive period he’s enjoyed since the first two years: Cuba, the climate agreement with China, action on immigration, fast track on trade, the SCOTUS decisions on health care and marriage and now this agreement on Iran. These are big, historically significant developments, in most cases the culmination of years of commitment on his part.”

Obama himself said he hoped Congress would debate the Iran agreement on the facts and the merits, but added, “We live in Washington and politics do intrude.” The sharp and instantaneous denunciation of the president’s comments by Republicans was a sure sign of the parallel universes that constitute American politics these days. Former Gov. Rick Perry of Texas said on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show that Obama was a “very, very naïve man,” who “cannot put the dots together,” while Glenn Beck’s daily email newsletter subject line was, “Obama continues to destroy the country.”

The Republicans are not the only obstacle that Obama faces. He won his fast track Asian trade authority with largely Republican support, and the Iran agreement has stirred significant Democratic skepticism, among even the party’s leaders in Congress. If the Greek financial crisis engulfs Europe and spreads to Wall Street, there is no telling what the American economy might look like when Obama leaves office in 18 months.

By definition, the success or failure of the Iran agreement will not be known until long after Obama has left office, and critics like Adelman worry that even if Iran cheats on its obligations, international sanctions will never be re-imposed, because violations will be so hard to prove and the global investment in Iran will be so entrenched that it cannot be unwound.

Continue reading here>>>

U.S. Politics

Newspaper That Printed Letter Calling For Obama’s Execution: Oops!

AP Photo | Jacquelyn Martin

That “oops” is so transparent…(ks)


The Daily Item, a newspaper based in Sunbury, Pennsylvania, ran a letter on Memorial Daytitled “What is a Ramadi?” in which a local man criticized Obama’s approach to the Islamic State terror group.

“To the families of those fallen heros whose blood lies on the sands of Iraq; don’t you think it might be time to rise up against an administration who has adequately demonstrated their gross incompetence?,” Lewisburg, Pennsylvania resident W. Richard Stover wrote. “I think the appropriate, and politically correct, term is regime change. Forgive me for being blunt, but throughout history this has previously been accompanied by execution by guillotine, firing squad, public hanging.”

The Daily Item’s editorial board wrote Thursday that while “no bells went off” when the editor who placed Stover’s letter in the opinion pages first read it, the reference to execution should have been removed.

“Nearly a decade of provocative and divisive rhetoric may have inured us to language that calls the president of the United States ‘the coward-in-chief’ and the disrespectful use of the president’s first name…But we should have recognized that the final two metaphorical paragraphs of the Ramadi letter were inescapably an incitement to have the chief executive of our government executed. They should have been deleted,” the editorial read.

The editorial board added that publishing the letter as is wrongly implied the newspaper found Stover’s call for the President’s execution to be acceptable.

“The Daily Item apologizes for our failure to catch and remove the inappropriate paragraphs in the letter directed at President Obama,” the editorial read. “We will strive to do better in the future.”

h/t Politico


Fox nation Racists

Fox Nation Readers React To Death Of Nelson Mandela With Racism, Death Wishes For Obama

Some might ask why bother to publish this stuff.  To that, I reply, why not?  Why protect the SOBs by not publicizing their inanity?


Fox Nation posted a respectful article about Nelson Mandela’s death – and many of their readers responded in kind. But many erupted in such shocking racism and/or death-wishing hatred for President Obama that words fail us. You really need to see them for yourself. (H/T Andrew S.) UPDATED

This is what passes for “tolerance” and “civil discourse” on Fox Nation:






















UPDATE: Apparently, Fox is embarrassed enough by their own readers that they have now removed the comments section along with the previously existing comments.

H/t: DB

Affordable Care Act · Fox News Sunday

Fox News Sunday Interviews Former Republican Activist as Everyday Obamacare ‘Victim’

No surprise here.  This is par for the course with Fox News.  Propaganda is their entire game.


If news consumers had a nickel for every bogus Obamacare horror story on TV, they wouldn’t need Obamacare. Add to the list the story of 34 year-old Georgia native Cade Joiner, who was interviewed by Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday this week. Introduced simply as a “businessman” who is “Losing Health Plan,” Mr. Joiner’s story, getting a letter in the mail cancelling his old health insurance, and “calling around” only to find the new plan cost much more, sounded familiar. Some of the language Joiner used about Obamacare being “not ready for prime time” sounded even more familiar.

In fact, Mr. Joiner might even look familiar to you, if you’re into Georgia Republican politics. Here is the same Cade Joiner introducing Ralph Reed at the 2001 College Republican National Convention:

At that time, Joiner had just finished a stint as President of the Georgia Association of College Republicans, but more recently, he was a campaign fundraising organizer, and then a campaign finance committee co-chair, for the successful reelection bid of Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp (R-GA).

None of this necessarily means Joiner is a bad person, or even that he’s not a credible guest, but these are things that Fox News Sunday, and host Chris Wallace, should have disclosed to viewers. Wallace also should have asked Joyner where he “called around” to find an individual health insurance policy for over $500, when the most expensive policy available in his county of residence costs about $350.00, and there are several plans available for less than he was paying before. It might be tough to get viewers to sympathize with a Republican fundraising heavyweight whose insurance premiums went up, but nearly impossible if they went down.

Cade Joiner may have an honest gripe with President Obama’s assurance that he could keep his plan, and there may well be some tradeoffs for some people when it comes to individual insurance, but even though consumers like Cade Joiner are still having trouble using the Obamacare website, there’s little excuse for news outlets to fail to do such basic research. There’s also no good reason to conceal Mr. Joiner’s political activism, unless the point is to make him seem dishonest upon its revelation.


Affordable Care Act

Juan Williams Accuses Republicans Of ‘Empty Rhetoric’ On Obamacare (VIDEO)

The Huffington Post

Fox News analyst Juan Williams hit out at Republicans on Sunday over their opposition to Obamacare.

Williams appeared on a “Fox News Sunday” panel. He responded to Chris Wallace’s charge that some Americans are losing their health insurance plans under Obamacare.

“I get the sense that people on the Republican side are enjoying this moment, but this is empty rhetoric,” Williams said. He added that some plans are being cancelled because they do not meet Obamacare standards, but that those affected have received offers “for better packages at lower costs with more benefits.”

“This is not the apocalypse,” Williams added.

Brit Hume disagreed, saying, “The president promised explicitly — we heard it on this program—if you like the coverage you have now you can keep it, period… They’re now being told they can’t have those polices anymore. They must have policies that involve coverage for things they may feel they don’t need.”

The two continued to clash in the clip above.

(h/t Mediaite)

%d bloggers like this:
%d bloggers like this:
%d bloggers like this:
%d bloggers like this:
%d bloggers like this:
%d bloggers like this:
%d bloggers like this:
%d bloggers like this:
%d bloggers like this:
%d bloggers like this:
%d bloggers like this: