Of Course He Doesn't

This was discussed over the weekend, so I'm a little late to the game.

Turns out that Florida doctor Jack Cassell made it clear of his distain for the Obama administrations healthcare reform ( he placed a sign on his door telling those that support it should go elsewhere ) but his complete lack of knowledge of reform is being brought to light.

He was interviewed by Alan Colmes recently and Colmes challenged him more than he was by Neil Cavuto.

COLMES: Do you really think the government wants people dead?

CASSELL: Well I think that they’re cutting all supportive care, like nursing homes, ambulance services –

COLMES: What do you mean they’re cutting nursing homes?

CASSELL: They’re cutting nursing home reimbursements.

COLMES: Isn’t what they’re cutting under the Medicare plan what was really double dipping; they were getting credits and they were getting to deduct them at the same time.

CASSELL: Well you know, I can’t tell you exactly what the deal is.

COLMES: If you can’t tell us exactly what the deal is, why are you opposing it and fighting against it?

CASSELL: I’m not the guy who wrote the plan.

COLMES: But if you don’t know what the deal is why are you speaking out against something you don’t know what the deal is?

CASSELL: What I get online, just like any other American. What I’m supposed to understand about the bill should be available to me.

COLMES: It is; it’s been online for a long time; it’s also been all over the media.

And Think Progress points out that his little "free speech" stunt is losing him patients.

A local TV station in Florida spoke to one of Cassell’s patients, who said that while the doctor’s care has been “wonderful,” he’s never going back after this political stunt. “Keep politics out,” said patient Steve Berger. “I mean, he can have his opinion, but what’s the next sign saying? If you’re Catholic, you can’t come? Or you’re an Arab, you can’t come in, or you’re a Jew? It has to stop somewhere.”

Conservative ideology in action.

Lost In Translation

I've been asking this question to conservatives that I know since Obama was elected. Seems that it's a question no one is really keen to answer, or they simply misrepresent what they think they can and can't do.

David Neiwert at Crooks And Liars highlights a video of Megyn Kelly and Alan Colmes talking about "freedoms". Alan poses the question - what "freedoms" have these people lost. Turns out Megyn can't answer, just like every conservative.

Colmes: I'd like to know exactly what freedom -- what freedoms are being taken away from people?

Kelly: People are worried they're going to lose their health-insurance coverage! They're worried the federal government is going to step in, take over, and they're not going to be able to see their coverage.

Colmes: I didn't see any particulars about exactly what freedoms people think are going to be taken away. I would like to know what they are.

Kelly: There is just as much in this survey about health care as there is the Patriot Act!

Colmes: Yeah, but nothing in this survey says particular health care, particular Patriot Act, it's just a general question, "freedoms". I mean, what particular freedoms. People call my radio show all the time, 'My freedoms are being compromised.'

All right, I ask them. What freedom is being compromised? What freedom have you lost under Barack Obama?

Kelly: You tell me, Alan -- do you think the Democrats on Capitol Hill are going into 2010 election thinking, 'The problem with numbers like this is the Patriot Act! It is the Bush administration policies.'

Colmes: They're also not going, 'The problem is health care. If we get health care, my freedoms are being taken away.' How do your freedoms get compromised?

Here are some answers that were given to me by members of my own community while attempting to discuss this on a local message-board.

You asked about loss of freedoms, let me suggest a few: 1) I cannot hunt unless I purchase a permit from the government 2) I cannot fish unless I purchase a permit from the government 3) I cannot improve my property unless I purchase a building permit, you guessed it, from the government 4) The law of the land requires me to wear a seatbelt in my car which is equipped with hundreds of safetly features including about 4 airbags that deploy in the event of a crash 5) Although I am not a smoker, we watched as locally a non-elected body passed legislation that essentially took away private property rights and then watched as the elected body tried to save face and modify the rules 6) We have recently seen the Obama administration expand the definition of streams to include any place that water will run off at all so they can essentially take away our right to make a living in the mining industry.

Here's some freedoms lost: Ever heard of assualt weapons bans? What about school choice? Christian symbols removed? Parental notification in abortions? Must you trust so much in a government that carves and carves away freedom? Taxes by their very nature take freedom from us. The Bush tax cuts gave us 5million jobs (that Obama has erased completely) despite a Democratic congress increasing spending by 42%.

You'll notice that there has was not one "right" listed in any of these responses to my question. People hunt, fish, buy guns, worship whatever God they want, can chose either private or public schools, smoke, refurbish their home, or do any of these things they think they can't. It's this mind-set that somehow, since Obama was elected, the country has changed in such a radical way that it is literally unrecognizable.

And while some will chalk this up to racial divisiveness, I think it has more to do with people's inability to understand that this isn't a country run by conservative law or liberal law. This isn't a country that ordained Bush as Monarch until his death. This isn't a country that is governed by the minority. Conservatives have literally wet themselves in abject fear over what they perceive, not what is real.

Prayers Of The Far Right

There's been quite a bit of talk lately about how people are approaching the subject of death in regards to ones ideological opposites or perceieved enemies.

Fringe conservative "pastor" Wiley Drake is openly "praying" for Barack Obama's death. But, he says it's not really saying anything - it's actually God saying this.

No, seriously.

*click image to play audio from Alan Colmes radio program*



Why is this not suprising? It's because conservatives rationale for most of the idiotic things they say and do is that "God" told them to or that they were following the "word of the bible".

Whether Drake's "death prayer" is an isolated incident or not can't be determined as a concrete yes or no answer, but Obama has this uncanny ability to bring out the crazy, religious, zealots by simply being a black man with a funny name that just happened to win the Presidential election by a majority vote.

( h/t: Paddy @ The Political Carnival )

And He Probably Believes It Too

When you have a person with such a massive ego, like Bill O'Reilly, it's difficult to have an intelligent diiscussion with them. The reason being, they know EVERYTHING.

O'Reilly, for all of his self-agrandizing posturing, has a very difficult time remembering the history revolving around the country that he claims to be "looking out for". There have been several examples of this in the recent past.



Colmes always gives up too easily.

Here's a pick of Mao.



You see that guy on the left? The one that's smiling and *gasp* shaking Mao's hand?

That's Richard Nixon.

I'm Guessing No

When Alan Colmes announced that he was leaving the Hannity and Colmes program, I was more curious as to what Colmes was thinking. What prompted him to leave now?

However, the question should have been more geared toward who Colmes' replacement is going to be. I had alluded to Kirsten Powers, but that wouldn't exactly be raising the bar. The question should be, does Hannity have the sand to stand up to a powerful "liberal"?

Turns out Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune made that the topic of a recent article.

Good. I've long felt that Colmes was to Hannity what the Washington Generals are to the Harlem Globetrotters -- symbolic opposition.

Hannity is quicker, louder, angrier, funnier and more confrontational and self-assured than the comparatively mild, cerebral Colmes, therefore he's the dominant and more compelling half of the team.

I'd love to see Fox News Channel audition some of the liberal pundits out there who'd give Hannity a good match every night: Ed Schultz, Mike Malloy and Randi Rhodes come to mind. Al Franken, if he loses in the Minnesota Senate-race recount.

I would suggest Rachel Maddow, but she's such a rising star on her own at MSNBC that even a prime-time pairing with Hannity would be a big step down for her.

The truth is, Hannity is the centerpiece of the show. That's how Roger Ailes set it up, and that's how it's been for 12 years.

Sean would never be able to last with Randi Rhodes or Franken. His utter disdain for those two alone would cause his head to explode, just like that scene in Scanners, should they be sitting across the desk from him.

Zorn almost lost me with the second paragraph. Hannity is only funny to himself, and the only thing he is quick with are his references to Ronald Reagan and whatever the hot talking-point is from his daily memo. Just being boorish doesn't make you a great host. Therein lies Hannity's weakness.

If pitted against any on the list that Zorn has referenced, Hannity would be reduced to a stuttering, fumbling, freshman. He's in his element because he is in control. The show would loose practically it's entire audience if there were a strong, liberal counterpart there.

But one is left with another question when thinking about this. If a "liberal" signs a contract with Fox"News", can they still be considered a "liberal"?

I'm Suprised He Lasted This Long

It appears that Alan Colmes isn't going to be Sean Hannity's punching bag anymore.

"I approached Bill Shine (FNC's Senior Vice President of Programming) earlier this year about wanting to move on after 12 years to develop new and challenging ways to contribute to the growth of the network," Colmes said. "Although it's bittersweet to leave one of the longest marriages on cable news, I'm proud that both Sean (Hannity) and I remained unharmed after sitting side by side, night after night for so many years."

Hannity added, "Not only has Alan been a remarkable co-host, he's been a great friend which is rare in this industry -- I'll genuinely miss sparring with such a skillful debate.

It is to be expected that Hannity would say "something nice" to the press. However, I'm not buying any of it. Not even Colmes' graceful exit-stage-left routine.

Colmes has been getting stronger in his rhetoric the past few months. His replies to guests are becoming more direct, more pointed, more powerful. In other words, I'm guessing that he's tired of having to deal with all of Hannity's clap-trap and the people that are far too willing to swallow it whole. I'm impressed that he lasted 12 years.

So, who's going to be the new doormat?

Sean Hannity, the popular conservative commentator, may become the sole host of the program, according to one source close to the network who insisted on anonymity while speaking about private deliberations.

Ah, the "anonymous" source.

My guess is that it's going to be Kirsten Powers. She can be a fairly rational voice for the Democratic cause. However, she is far too easily sucked into the "I have to make Hannity look good" role and simply goes through the motions and ends up making the party she allegedly is there to represent look pathetic. Then again, she could be just another "pretty face" like O'Reilly has on his program.

Only time will tell.

Regardless, good on you Colmes. Now, go out and stir things up.

You can check out Alan Colmes' blog "Liberaland" to see what he's got rumbling around his head.

The Foxy Business Of Punditry

It's common knowledge that Fox"News" loves them some Republicans in power. They will, and have, done just about anything a "news" organization can do in order to distribute as much propoganda as possible.

When it comes to Barack Obama, it's even more evident that they are willing to do or say just about anything.

But, when it turns out that John McCain should be part of the conversation, the pundits, analysts, and "experts" don't seem to see how that is relevant to the discussion.

During the 1990s, while he served as chairman of the International Republican Institute (IRI), McCain distributed several grants to the Palestinian research center co-founded by Khalidi, including one worth half a million dollars.

A 1998 tax filing for the McCain-led group shows a $448,873 grant to Khalidi's Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank. (See grant number 5180, "West Bank: CPRS" on page 14 of this PDF.)

The relationship extends back as far as 1993, when John McCain joined IRI as chairman in January. Foreign Affairs noted in September of that year that IRI had helped fund several extensive studies in Palestine run by Khalidi's group, including over 30 public opinion polls and a study of "sociopolitical attitudes."

Of course, there's seemingly nothing objectionable with McCain's organization helping a Palestinian group conduct research in the West Bank or Gaza. But it does suggest that McCain could have some of his own explaining to do as he tries to make hay out of Khalidi's ties to Obama.

More from Seth Colter Walls here.

Of course, Sarah Palin has to be defended as well on Fox - for now.

In the continuing saga of "guilt-by-association" on Fox"News", Republican Micheal Steele finally came out and admitted that he thinks it's not relevant because a "liberal" - Alan Colmes, asked the same question of Palin that he is asking of Obama:



You can find more on this and the above story from Newshounds.

Given the fact that Fox is willing to dive head-first into the shallow end of the pool, people began to realize that they would eventually slip-up and have a "guest" or use a "source" that was, to put it mildly, not the best choice.

This happened when Sean Hannity used Andy Martin, a known anti-semitic racist, during his epic "Obama Has Radical Associations Be Afraid" program. Rather than checking to see if his guest had a dark past of his own, he just ran with it because it was another chance to try and make Obama look bad.

Fox finally came out and said that it was a "bad choice". But, so far, Hannity doesn't seem to be bothered with it. After all, he's still getting his paycheck every week.

I Wanna Talk, I Wanna Talk, Don't Be Mad At Me Sean, Please!!!

Just what debate were Sean Hannity and Dick Morris watching?

I told myself last night that I wouldn't watch any of the post-debate analysis, and thank God I didn't or I would have surely thrown the nearest heavy object at my TV.



It was predictable that Hannity would give glowing praise to Palin no matter what she said or did. Morris, on the other hand, seemed more interested in getting praise from Hannity rather than actually talking about the debate they just watched.

Wait, did they watch it?

It's more than just a little telling when you have Dick Morris so near full-on "rage" mode simply because he isn't being afforded time enough to create this "messiah" image out of Sarah Palin.

This wasn't about Morris' take on the debte, this was about Morris saving face with Hannity.

Does Being A POW Mean That You Can Get Away With Adultery?

Sean Hannity says that McCain's adultery was alright because:

Hannity: “He was in a prisoner of war camp! [He cheated on his wife] after five and a half years in a prisoner of war camp!“

Perhaps Colmes has finally grown-a-pair and is ready to step-up to Sean Hannity when he pulls stunts like this.

Honestly, Colmes should have been doing this for years. Sean's arguements are based off nothing more than his own tilted sense of reasoning. What else would you expect.

Hannity: I’m not getting this. Explain to me and I’m wondering if you can’t keep the promise to your family, can’t keep your promise to your wife, you’re having an affair, you’re lying about the affair repeatedly, why should the American people trust you when you say you’re not going to lie to them? Why should we trust you?

Colmes: And by the way, that’s a great question Sean asks and so Amanda, if that’s true and you can’t trust somebody who had an affair. How can we trust John McCain to be President of the United States—he cheated on by his own admission on his first wife, he didn’t keep his martial vows, he didn’t keep his pledge to his first family…

Hannity: Thirty years ago after five and a half years of being a POW

Colmes: Excuse me Sean. You’ve had your chance to speak, I’m up. John McCain cheated on his wife, right. Amanda? So how do we trust John McCain? He cheated on his wife, why do you have a double standard and John McCain’s running for President? John Edwards is not. John McCain’s wife was in a car accident. John McCain’s running for President, what about his affair?

So, let's go with this rationalization, shall we.

Rudy Guliani wasn't a POW, and he's cheated - A LOT.

Sean helped fund-raise for him. So, he must have an excuse for Rudy's crotch-hopping excapades.

No one should expect people like Sean Hannity to be an objective journalist, he's not and he never will be.

But, the question is this - can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that a person that has an affair and lies about it can't do their job or the job that they are attempting to get?