Sarah Palin Again Makes Headlines, Congressional Crooks, New Mammogram Recommendations, And Stupak Amendment Discussion
Hi everyone. Happy New Week! And oh what a new week it is. Hide your wolves, people. Because the Quitta from Wasilla? She's baaaaacck! Back in the headlines, anyway. It seems Sarah Palin wrote a book. And I use the word "wrote" in the loosest way possible. But anyway, mediagasm! The former governor's first stop at pimping out that fine piece of literature? None other than Oprah Winfrey herself. Let's see, one of 360's obsessions being interviewed by another of 360's obsessions. You think we'll have discussion of this? You betcha!
We begin with a piece from Candy Crowley that lays down the background. We know the basic rub here, right? Though adored by conservatives, the majority of Americans are just not that into the former Veep candidate when it comes to actually leading. Gee, I wonder why.
Next up, we're joined by Tom Foreman, the poor sap who had to spend all day reading the book. Though CNN claims to be an objective network, this incident proves they are clearly pro-torture. I think Tom probably needs a hug right about now. Anyhoo! His suffering was not for naught: fact-checking was performed. Apparently, Palin is trying to play off the whole disastrous Katie Couric interview as something that was pushed by adviser Nicolle Wallace to give Couric a self esteem boost (wha?). Wallace claims the convo never happened. Given that I witnessed Wallace spin her way throughout the campaign, this is a bit of a tough-y regarding picking who's probably telling the truth.
We learn from Tom that Palin also got her facts wrong about the recession under Reagan and issues related to her ethics. In fact, the Associated Press is doing a big fact-check on the book, something Palin calls "opposition research." Supposedly there are 11 reporters dedicated to checking the book out. All well and good, but as Markos at Dailykos noted, gee, wouldn't it have been nice if they would have had 11 reporters investigate Bush's WMD claims? Priorities I guess.
Also mentioned by Tom, is that Palin brings up John Kerry's botched joke from three years ago, and calls him a "loon" for saying kids who don't do their homework will end up in Iraq. From Tom: "Kerry a long time ago explained that he was not disparaging our troops in those comments, but was making a joke about President Bush suggesting that he was not too bright for getting us into that war, Anderson." Irony alert! We're getting the no BS line tonight, but that is SO not how 360 played it back then. That's right, I remember. I often rail against CNN's stupid fake "balance," but that was one of the most egregious instances I had ever seen, and one of the few times I have ever questioned this show's objectivity.
Panel time (with bonus Oprah clips)! Keeping the seats warm are Republican Dede Scozzafava of New York 23 fame, Mary Matalin, and David Gergen. They talk about Palin making money and her political future and...man, I so don't care. Of note is Anderson Cooper's observation that Palin is like a Rorschach test. I just found that kind of funny because I often view CNN the same way. I also loved Anderson basically saying that facts don't matter to Palin's supporters. It's true! This segment is followed by an oddly placed "Beat 360," because apparently they want to confuse me.
On now to the news that William Jefferson will be going away for 13 years. You might remember him as the Congressional dude who thought he could put $90,000 in his freezer. Them's some cojones. This segues us into a Joe Johns piece on how all these Congressional crooks still get to keep their pensions. Outrage! Except, um, I don't understand the point here. See, two years ago Congress passed the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act to prevent the collection of pensions of criminals.
The problem is people like Jefferson committed their crimes before the law was passed. Joe tells us that the constitution says you can't apply these things retroactively, so again, what's the what? Why is 360 telling me things that piss me off when there's nothing that can be done about it? Actually, they're not telling me at all--they're reminding me. With the exception of the new Jefferson info, this whole piece was pretty much a retread of the extensive reporting they did on this issue two years ago. At that time I repeatedly praised their commitment (check my archives). I guess now I don't understand how they're "keeping them honest." Is there actually something that could be done about the retroactive rule?
Transitioning now to the rather shocking news that the U.S. Preventative Services task force is now recommending that women wait until they're 50 to begin routine mammograms, rather than the previously advised 40. To complicate matters, a whole bunch of cancer experts are disagreeing. You know who's coming, doncha? Yep, Sanjay Gupta--the doc with the 1000 watt smile--is here to explain. Bottom line? These task force people aren't oncologists and you should listen to your own doctor (who will most likely say 40 to avoid being sued--just sayin').
Normally I think the whole "Text 360" thing is idiotic on several different levels, but tonight we got a great question: "Will insurance companies be able to claim that they will not pay for routine mammograms for women under 50 because it is no longer recommended?" Obviously they picked it because that's the angle they were going for, but duuuuuude. I didn't even think of that. That is totally what's going to happen. Now I have lots of questions. Who are these task force people? Can they be lobbied? Is this really about rationing? Go 360! There is honesty-keeping to do!
Next we have a preview for the Army tapes investigation, which is finally scheduled to start airing tomorrow. It looks really good.
Moving on now to discussion with Jeffrey Toobin about the Stupak abortion amendment, which was added to the House health care reform bill. Jeff has penned an interesting piece for the New Yorker that posits abortion is being marginalized. Which, it is. Says Jeff, "abortion is not treated like any other medical service." He then goes on to explain that though the Hyde amendment already prohibits public funds being used for abortions, Stupak is different in that individuals will be using their own money to buy their insurance policies. But because a percentage will be subsidized, their abortion rights will be off the table. Jeff estimates this will affect 20 million women.
The segment wraps up with this great quote, again from our senior legal analyst: "And one of the interesting things, as you study this around the world, is that abortion rates really don't change much if abortion is illegal. Brazil, abortions are illegal totally. But there are more abortions per capita than there are in the United States because women have abortions. They get them one way or another, either legally or illegally." So why not make them safe, legal, and rare?
For the "shot" tonight we get a clip of a dog welcoming home his soldier master. The Silver Fox makes the appropriate "aw" noises. I'm just going to go ahead and lay the whole mother lode down on you. If you can get through all those videos and not shed a tear, well, you don't have a soul.
The show was alright. I mean, you know, Palin. But I suppose we knew that was coming. Good info from Sanjay and Jeffrey. The show is at its best when they're investigating or being informative. The pundit chatter and political musings about non issues worked for them during the campaign, but that time is long over.
We begin with a piece from Candy Crowley that lays down the background. We know the basic rub here, right? Though adored by conservatives, the majority of Americans are just not that into the former Veep candidate when it comes to actually leading. Gee, I wonder why.
Next up, we're joined by Tom Foreman, the poor sap who had to spend all day reading the book. Though CNN claims to be an objective network, this incident proves they are clearly pro-torture. I think Tom probably needs a hug right about now. Anyhoo! His suffering was not for naught: fact-checking was performed. Apparently, Palin is trying to play off the whole disastrous Katie Couric interview as something that was pushed by adviser Nicolle Wallace to give Couric a self esteem boost (wha?). Wallace claims the convo never happened. Given that I witnessed Wallace spin her way throughout the campaign, this is a bit of a tough-y regarding picking who's probably telling the truth.
We learn from Tom that Palin also got her facts wrong about the recession under Reagan and issues related to her ethics. In fact, the Associated Press is doing a big fact-check on the book, something Palin calls "opposition research." Supposedly there are 11 reporters dedicated to checking the book out. All well and good, but as Markos at Dailykos noted, gee, wouldn't it have been nice if they would have had 11 reporters investigate Bush's WMD claims? Priorities I guess.
Also mentioned by Tom, is that Palin brings up John Kerry's botched joke from three years ago, and calls him a "loon" for saying kids who don't do their homework will end up in Iraq. From Tom: "Kerry a long time ago explained that he was not disparaging our troops in those comments, but was making a joke about President Bush suggesting that he was not too bright for getting us into that war, Anderson." Irony alert! We're getting the no BS line tonight, but that is SO not how 360 played it back then. That's right, I remember. I often rail against CNN's stupid fake "balance," but that was one of the most egregious instances I had ever seen, and one of the few times I have ever questioned this show's objectivity.
Panel time (with bonus Oprah clips)! Keeping the seats warm are Republican Dede Scozzafava of New York 23 fame, Mary Matalin, and David Gergen. They talk about Palin making money and her political future and...man, I so don't care. Of note is Anderson Cooper's observation that Palin is like a Rorschach test. I just found that kind of funny because I often view CNN the same way. I also loved Anderson basically saying that facts don't matter to Palin's supporters. It's true! This segment is followed by an oddly placed "Beat 360," because apparently they want to confuse me.
On now to the news that William Jefferson will be going away for 13 years. You might remember him as the Congressional dude who thought he could put $90,000 in his freezer. Them's some cojones. This segues us into a Joe Johns piece on how all these Congressional crooks still get to keep their pensions. Outrage! Except, um, I don't understand the point here. See, two years ago Congress passed the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act to prevent the collection of pensions of criminals.
The problem is people like Jefferson committed their crimes before the law was passed. Joe tells us that the constitution says you can't apply these things retroactively, so again, what's the what? Why is 360 telling me things that piss me off when there's nothing that can be done about it? Actually, they're not telling me at all--they're reminding me. With the exception of the new Jefferson info, this whole piece was pretty much a retread of the extensive reporting they did on this issue two years ago. At that time I repeatedly praised their commitment (check my archives). I guess now I don't understand how they're "keeping them honest." Is there actually something that could be done about the retroactive rule?
Transitioning now to the rather shocking news that the U.S. Preventative Services task force is now recommending that women wait until they're 50 to begin routine mammograms, rather than the previously advised 40. To complicate matters, a whole bunch of cancer experts are disagreeing. You know who's coming, doncha? Yep, Sanjay Gupta--the doc with the 1000 watt smile--is here to explain. Bottom line? These task force people aren't oncologists and you should listen to your own doctor (who will most likely say 40 to avoid being sued--just sayin').
Normally I think the whole "Text 360" thing is idiotic on several different levels, but tonight we got a great question: "Will insurance companies be able to claim that they will not pay for routine mammograms for women under 50 because it is no longer recommended?" Obviously they picked it because that's the angle they were going for, but duuuuuude. I didn't even think of that. That is totally what's going to happen. Now I have lots of questions. Who are these task force people? Can they be lobbied? Is this really about rationing? Go 360! There is honesty-keeping to do!
Next we have a preview for the Army tapes investigation, which is finally scheduled to start airing tomorrow. It looks really good.
Moving on now to discussion with Jeffrey Toobin about the Stupak abortion amendment, which was added to the House health care reform bill. Jeff has penned an interesting piece for the New Yorker that posits abortion is being marginalized. Which, it is. Says Jeff, "abortion is not treated like any other medical service." He then goes on to explain that though the Hyde amendment already prohibits public funds being used for abortions, Stupak is different in that individuals will be using their own money to buy their insurance policies. But because a percentage will be subsidized, their abortion rights will be off the table. Jeff estimates this will affect 20 million women.
The segment wraps up with this great quote, again from our senior legal analyst: "And one of the interesting things, as you study this around the world, is that abortion rates really don't change much if abortion is illegal. Brazil, abortions are illegal totally. But there are more abortions per capita than there are in the United States because women have abortions. They get them one way or another, either legally or illegally." So why not make them safe, legal, and rare?
For the "shot" tonight we get a clip of a dog welcoming home his soldier master. The Silver Fox makes the appropriate "aw" noises. I'm just going to go ahead and lay the whole mother lode down on you. If you can get through all those videos and not shed a tear, well, you don't have a soul.
The show was alright. I mean, you know, Palin. But I suppose we knew that was coming. Good info from Sanjay and Jeffrey. The show is at its best when they're investigating or being informative. The pundit chatter and political musings about non issues worked for them during the campaign, but that time is long over.
Labels: book promotion, mammogram recommendations, Oprah, pensions, Sarah Palin, Stupak Amendment, William Jefferson
posted by eliza at 11:59 PM
1 Comments:
Hi Eliza,
When I saw that AC was going rogue, I tuned out. When I saw that it went on for the first 1/2 hour, I never returned. Why is the media so simple-minded? When are the journalists going to stop speculating and asking Palin is she running in 2012? Why are they obsessed with this? How come they are not asking the qualified Republican women like Susan Collins,Kay Bailey Hutchison, Olympia Snowe if they are running, to name a few. Palin quits a job she was elected for, I don't know why the speculation needs to go any further. The population of Alaska is less than most cities that Mayors are in charge of. If any other Gov. quit, I know the media would hold that against them, but oh no, not the mooose lady. I am ranting because I just can't take it anymore. Please clue me in on the media's dysfunctional behavior in this matter. I'll take the days of Huntley-Brinkley, John Chancellor, Walter Cronkite over the current news media. The exception is PBS and 60 minutes. I saw the collection of the dog videos last week, they are very heartwarming. Anne D.
Post a Comment
<< Home