MSNBC Scoffs at Idea Media Favored Clinton in Election
The host of MSNBC's "Morning Joe" news and commentary show—Joe Scarborough—defended defeated presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's claim that a "hostile media" was a significant factor in her loss to Donald Trump last year. "As I recall, the media treatment of Secretary Clinton was pretty damn hostile," he remembered. "Take that whole email thing. It could've, and probably should've, been deep-sixed considering how the election turned out. But a misplaced concern for the facts—no matter how harmful they might've been to her chances—led to the unnecessary publication of news regarding her extraordinarily careless handling of classified documents."
"Morning Joe" panelist and USA Today columnist Heidi Przybyla concurred with Scarborough's take, adding that "I can seen how Mrs. Clinton would regard the New York Times' mention of Wikileaks as an unforgivable betrayal. Instead of shielding her from the revelations contained in these purloined emails it recklessly exposed them to prying eyes. So, yeah, that was a pretty hostile act on their part."
The perception at "Morning Joe" deviated from the perceptions of voters who saw media coverage of the two candidates as favoring Clinton by a 9-1 ratio. Similarly, 98 of the top 100 largest newspapers in the US endorsed Clinton over Trump in their pre-election editorials.
Whether the alleged hostile media meme might justify a reversal of the election outcome was an idea floated by Mrs. Clinton during an interview associated with her book tour. "Certainly from a moral perspective there is, I think, sufficient grounds for such a reversal," the former candidate asserted. "However, I am not aware of any legal mechanism by which this might be accomplished."
Clinton ally, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif) assured her that "Congress has the power to remove President Trump for whatever reason it deems appropriate," she asserted. "It says in the Constitution that we can alter or abolish the existing government and institute new government. All it takes is a majority voting to do that."
RINO Stampede May Doom Graham/Cassidy Health Bill
Despite being fellow GOP Sen. Lindsay Graham's BFF, Arizona Sen. John McCain announced his opposition to his pal's last ditch bid to replace Obamacare with a block grant to states so they each can craft a health care regime tailored to local conditions. McCain's key objection: "there is no assurance that Democrats will support it."
"I think we need a lengthy deliberative process with extensive hearings, debate and, most of all, consensus between the two Parties before we move forward," the Senator explained. The fact that Obamacare was approved without a single GOP vote in its favor didn't daunt McCain's resolve "to oppose any changes not agreeable to our friends across the aisle."
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif), architect of the straight Party line vote to enact Obamacare in 2010, praised McCain's bipartisanship. "This is the kind of selfless heroism that has made Sen. McCain's career," she said. "As long as no Democrats in the Senate cross over in a misguided notion of bipartisanship Obamacare will be safe from mutilation by those who think that granting individuals or states more freedom to choose the type of health care they want is a viable approach."
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said she is also leaning against the Graham-Cassidy bill. "I just can't trust the idea that each state should be allowed to deviate from standards of health care prescribed by federal officials," Collins declared. "The wisdom and knowledge of federal experts outweighs that of state officials and individuals. The collective well-being of society is in better hands if one body is empowered to decide for all without the idiosyncratic deviations based on selfish perspectives that would stem from this bill." Collins did say she "might be swayed if I could get the same kind of deal it appears they're offering Sen. Murkowsi." The Murkowsi "deal" would grant special privileges to Alaska and Hawaii that are not extended to any of the other 48 states.
Sanders' "Medicare for All Act" Gains Support
Vermont Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders' "Medicare for All Act" has been gaining support from a growing number of Democrats. His bill would establish a single-payer health care system and outlaw private medical practice.
"The current system is too complicated and confusing," Sanders contends. "My bill would simplify everything by placing all the responsibility and control in the hands of the government. Disputes over what care is warranted would be eliminated. The decisions regarding who can be treated will be consolidated in a single authority. Everyone would get the care that best serves the collective needs of society. No individual would be permitted to opt out or seek to obtain care outside the system. All—rich and poor alike—would be subject to the same standardized therapies. No resources would be wasted on persons of no social value."
Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis) was enthusiastic. "Having the government totally control who gets treatment and who doesn't will work to bring about greater social solidarity and compliance," she said. "Once everyone realizes that their access to care depends solely on the government they will be more motivated to cooperate with the government lest they render themselves ineligible as 'socially undesirable elements.' Not even the rich will be allowed to dodge the regime by purchasing services not covered from private practitioners because there will no longer be any private doctors."
Baldwin admitted that "even were this bill to become law we couldn't immediately prevent people from going outside the country's borders to seek care outlawed by the nationalized system, as many living under Canada's single-payer system have done. But looking down the road to the next Democratic Administration a presidential executive action could ban travel for medical reasons for being inconsistent with the intent of the single-payer law. And NSA could monitor private communications to spot likely offenders before they could escape the country."
Comparison of Poverty Rates Called "Unfair"
In California the poverty rate is 20.4%. In Texas it is 14.7%. California Governor Jerry Brown (D) claimed "the heads-up comparison is unfair. Our income tax rate is 13.3%. Texas has no income tax. So each person in our state has to contribute more of his or her income before they get to spend any of it on themselves."
"We also have more regulations controlling where and how people can live and where and how businesses can operate," Brown added. "This makes housing less affordable and raises the prices businesses must charge in order to stay profitable. Naturally, that has impacts on poverty. If it costs more to house yourself and to buy things you're going to have a lower standard of living."
Brown contended that "we have gone to greater lengths to try to ameliorate the situation by making it easier to get welfare benefits. In Texas they have disincentives for relying on welfare. They try to push everyone into the work-a-day rat race on the premise that everyone ought to support himself if he can. For people who don't want to be a wage-slave the choices are stark. I'm proud to say that's not how it is in California. We respect an individual's aversion to work. Leisure is a lifestyle that ought to be attainable for everyone regardless of whether he can support this lifestyle from his own efforts. If we had the same kind of system they have in Texas over 500,000 more able-bodied Californians would be forced to take jobs just to live. If a higher poverty rate is the price we have to pay to avoid that kind of oppression I think most of our voters will accept that trade off."
Kim Calls Trump "Deranged Dotard"
North Korean tyrant Kim Jong-un blasted US President Donald Trump's UN speech as "the mutterings of a deranged dotard" and vowed that "the world will pay a high price for allowing this maniac to insult my country."
The use of the unusual term "dotard" sent media outlets to consult dictionaries in search of its meaning. According to the dictionary, a dotard is a person, especially an old person, exhibiting a decline in mental faculties.
To prove his point, Kim cited what he called "a logical contradiction in this gangster's speech where he called for all nations to respect the internal affairs of other nations, yet criticized us for starving our own people. Are nations sovereign or are they not? Isn't this issue of whether a nation chooses to starve its own people clearly an internal matter?"
North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Yong-ho, whose predecessor Hu Dun-rong was executed with an antiaircraft cannon for "insufficient enthusiasm," compared Trump's speech to "the sound of a barking dog," and warned that his government "would set off the most powerful detonation of an H-bomb in human history as a stern lesson to the United States for its insults and aggression against our abuse of our own people."
Key Democrats find themselves agreeing more with Kim than Trump in this confrontation. "The knee-jerk response would be to get behind the American president in any conflict with a foreign power, but after careful consideration I'm convinced that would be the wrong decision," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) concluded. "I mean, we have direct evidence that Donald Trump is evil. He blocked the most qualified person to ever seek the presidency from taking office by waging an insidiously clever campaign that won over the ignorant masses who've been the long-time base of the Democratic Party. Kim, on the other hand hasn't really done anything to harm America."
Rep. Eliot Engel (NY), the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, called Trump's position "absurd" and predicted "a humiliating loss of face for the United States when we have to back down from the President's indefensible attacks on this small, far away country that has never done us any harm."
Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) worried that "the carefully crafted peace between North Korea and the United States that Presidents Clinton and Obama worked so hard to achieve is being thrown away by a reckless Donald Trump. His predecessors muted North Korean threats with a program of cash payments. Trump's refusal to continue this successful policy heightens the danger that the nuclear weapons bought with these payments will now be used against the United States. Somehow, someone must stop this maniac before he goes too far."