| |
|
By Scott Whitlock
ABC journalist Terry Moran suffered a full meltdown as he reacted to Donald Trump’s United Nations speech on Tuesday. The network's chief foreign correspondent condemned the President’s warning to North Korea as “bordering on the threat of a war crime.” Bizarrely, he claimed that the speech, which warned Iran and condemned socialism in Venezuela, was one Vladimir Putin would give and that dictators everywhere would love.
Trump told the United Nations that if America is “forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.” In response, Moran freaked out: “The words ‘totally destroying’ a nation of 25 million people, that borders on the threat of committing a war crime.”
The speech included lines like this one: “The problem in Venezuela is not that socialism has been poorly implemented, but that socialism has been faithfully implemented.” The President also condemned the “murderous regime” in Iran. Somehow, Moran twisted these remarks into a defense of dictators:
He said something, frankly, that Vladimir Putin would have said — no question about it — when he said, “We do not expect diverse countries to share the same cultures, but we do expect all nations to uphold two core sovereign duties, to respect the interests of their own people and the rights of every other sovereign nation." And there are lots of dictators around the world, including Vladimir Putin, who say the same thing and will hear those words, however President Trump meant them, as a license to do whatever they want to their own people.
Moran isn’t always so tough on new presidents. On February 20, 2009, he compared Barack Obama to George Washington: “I like to say that, in some ways, Barack Obama is the first President since George Washington to be taking a step down into the Oval Office.”
A transcript of the ABC coverage is below:
 ABC live coverage 9/19/17 10:47am
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: I want to bring in our chief foreign correspondent, Terry Moran in London this morning as well. And Terry, as I said, a meditation on this theme of strong sovereign nations. A very unapologetic speech from President Trump.
TERRY MORAN: That's right, George. This is the revenge of the nation state, which was meant to bring the nation states together after they tore the world apart in World War II under the umbrella of cooperation. Every American president — the United States basically birthed the United Nations and every president since then has at least paid lip service to this notion of bringing the nations together under the aegis of the United Nations. This was very different. He said something, frankly, that Vladimir Putin would have said — No question about it — when he said, “We do not expect diverse countries to share the same cultures, but we do expect all nations to uphold two core sovereign duties, to respect the interests of their own people and the rights of every other sovereign nation." And there are lots of dictators around the world, including Vladimir Putin, who say the same thing and will hear those words, however President Trump meant them, as a license to do whatever they want to their own people.
STEPHANOPOULOS: I think that’s true, although there was also some veiled criticism of both Vladimir Putin and China when he talked about preserving sovereignty from Ukraine to the South China Sea.
...
10:50
STEPHANOPOULOS: I want to follow that up with Terry Moran as well. Because, Terry, if you read the President’s words, he said the conditions for totally destroying North Korea would be “if forced to defend ourselves and our allies.” You could read that to possibly even open up justification for preventive war against North Korea.
MORAN: That is a potential justification. But the words “totally destroying” a nation of 25 million people, that borders on the threat of committing a war crime.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Yeah. And that is going to be the last word for us right now. Extraordinary speech from President Donald Trump at the United Nations General Assembly today, his first speech to the U.N. General Assembly. We are going to return you now to regular programming.
|
|
By Curtis Houck
From the moment President Trump’s Tuesday speech to the United Nations General Assembly ended, CNN made clear that they would be providing the liberal, pro-Obama response, lambasting his remarks as contradictory, “dark,” “frightening,” “incoherent,” and even weak.
Now, if you’re skeptical that this video supercut included only partisan commentators, that sadly did not happen as the same rhetoric was espoused by supposedly neutral analysts, anchors, and reporters.
Former Obama administration official and CNN senior diplomatic and military analyst John Kirby stepped up moments after the speech concluded, whining that “this wasn’t a speech” but instead “a sermon and he wasn't a president, he was a preacher up there giving his dark world view about threats and conflict.”
“This was a speech about conflict around the world, not a speech about cooperation and that's a real shame because of all the places you can give a speech about collective security and mutual cooperation and respect, it's at the U.N. and I think he missed a huge opportunity,” he added.
Senior political reporter Nia-Malika Henderson agreed and offered an utterly absurd comparison that Obama would be proud of. Just as Obama knocked American exceptionalism, she equated patriotism in various countries:
I think there is a bit of contradiction in his presentation today talking about sovereignty, a renewal of spirit for all these nations, nations needing to be patriotic. I imagine if you talk to folks in Venezuela, you talk to folks in North Korea, they imagine that they are being patriotic, right.
Just past the 11:00 a.m. Eastern mark, Dana Bash also took issue with the speech, complaining that Trump didn’t seem to show concern for global human rights:
It was probably the most clear about his world view and not just America First, but about what he expects and it's a lot like who he is and was as a President and as a person. It's transactional. It's not about human rights. It’s not about, you know, kind of American values, the Republicans that we covered about American exceptionalism and even Democrats[.]
Kirby wanted a second bite at the apple, mocking Trump’s speech as being “like he’s lecturing himself, almost trying to teach himself at an eighth grade level about basic sovereignty, multinational issues....this was...very absent of any of the normal universal values and mutual cooperation that we try to seek in these international bodies.”
Perhaps the most deranged reaction came from CNN political commentator Brian Fallon, who’s still licking his wounds from being a part of the Hillary Clinton campaign. Speaking to host Wolf Blitzer, Fallon bemoaned how Trump’s strong stance against North Korea marked “one of many examples of how intellectually confused, if not outright incoherent, the speech was.”
“If you just think about it, in one breath, he was urging the world to come together and collectively confront the threat of North Korea and then in the next breath, he is chiding the world....He's gone around criticizing the United Nations as a body. So, this is a guy who goes around thumbing his nose at international entities and international attempts to confront global challenges,” Fallon added.
Again, the meltdowns featured traditional CNN reporters. Naturally, Jeff Zeleny harkened back to the days of Barack Obama, whom he asked what enchanted him most about the presidency.
Referring to Trump’s tough talk, Zeleny smirked that “[p]erhaps not surprisingly, it's difficult to align that parts of the world are going to hell” before going on as if he’s trying out for a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate:
This was a very somber, dark speech if you will, and I remember thinking back to the first appearance that President Obama made here in 2009, as President, of course a far different reception. Of course, he had a booming, enthusiastic applause.
CNN’s Inside Politics saw the same behavior as host John King seemed scared with Trump’s acknowledgement that North Korea may have to be wiped out: “It was remarkable to see a leader of any country, but the President of the United States, standing in the well of the United National General Assembly, threatening to totally destroy, not retaliate, not hurt, not, isolate, not prove a point, totally destroy a country.”
It wouldn’t be an anti-Trump mash-up without correspondent former Obama administration official Jim Sciutto taking a swing. Paraphrasing “a senior U.N. diplomat,” Sciutto revealed in the next hour that Trump’s North Korea threat “sparked an enormous reaction”:
[H]e, diplomats around him were taken aback. He described it to me like a wind had gone through the room when the President uttered those words we will totally destroy North Korea, said, it was an emotional reaction. There were rumblings to hear an American President threaten, in so many words, to obliterate another country. Truly remarkable and with the Iran threat somewhat different, a sense in the room that this is an American President who may very well withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal, but I’ll tell you. It’s those words about North Korea particularly sparked a reaction in that room. Audible gasps, I'm told. Extremely unusual, an emotional reaction, as this diplomat said.
CNN political analyst David Gregory went back to the George W. Bush years in order to bash both of them for “frightening” rhetoric: “[I]t's really frightening to hear an American president talk about obliterating any other country. The Axis of Evil speech that George W. Bush was certainly frightening and got controversial to a lot of people, but he didn't go that far.”
“My concern about the broader tone of the speech is that it really did push aside the idea of collective action and America as the leader of that collective action internationally and seemed to fortify the people who said, look. I will look after the interests of my own, whatever country that is from America to Russia,” Gregory stated.
Here’s the relevant transcript from CNN on September 19:
CNN’s Wolf
September 19, 2017
10:55 a.m. Eastern
 JOHN KIRBY: Look, this wasn't a speech. This was a sermon and he wasn't a president, he was a preacher up there giving his dark world view about threats and conflict. This was a speech about conflict around the world, not a speech about cooperation and that's a real shame because of all the places you can give a speech about collective security and mutual cooperation and respect, it's at the U.N. and I think he missed a huge opportunity.
(....)
10:57 a.m. Eastern
NIA-MALKINA HENDERSON: I think there is a bit of contradiction in his presentation today talking about sovereignty, a renewal of spirit for all these nations, nations needing to be patriotic. I imagine if you talk to folks in Venezuela, you talk to folks in North Korea, they imagine that they are being patriotic, right. I mean, and I think the North Korean leader also thinks he is trying to protect his own sovereignty by developing nuclear weapons. So, there is something I thought throughout that whole speech — you called it a sermon. I think if it — he obviously has to work on his delivery a little bit. It’s a little stilted, but I do think there is that contradiction that was really throughout the speech and throughout this whole idea of America First, but also of a U.N. has to help and nations should come together.
(....)
10:59 a.m. Eastern
DANA BASH: But this is a speech that we've not heard from Donald Trump at all during the whole campaign and even during his presidency, this kind of speech. It was probably the most clear about his world view and not just America First, but about what he expects and it's a lot like who he is and was as a President and as a person. It's transactional. It's not about human rights. It’s not about, you know, kind of American values, the Republicans that we covered about American exceptionalism and even Democrats, it's not about that. It’s you do your thing, you be — you do it as well as you can, don't bother other people until you get to the point where you are a threat then we're going to talk.
(....)
11:00 a.m. Eastern
GLORIA BORGER: He is guided by outcomes, winning -- not ideology.
KIRBY: It almost seemed like a lecture to himself, at least almost the first two thirds of it to me, almost seemed like he’s lecturing himself, almost trying to teach himself at an eighth grade level about basic sovereignty, multinational issues. But I agree completely, this was — this was absolutely very stark, very absent of any of the normal universal values and mutual cooperation that we try to seek in these international bodies.
BORGER: Well, and the language to me was so, you know, outspoken, clear. I mean talking about the regime in North Korea as a band of criminals. I mean that's — you know, and Iran, a murderous regime he called them and this is, you know, this is his so-called principled realism that he talks about. Whether you agree or disagree with him — and there are a lot of people in that audience that didn't like being lectured to and disagreed with every word he said — but there was no confusion where he stands, absolutely not.
(....)
11:04 a.m. Eastern
 BRIAN FALLON: Well, Wolf, thought that was one of many examples of how intellectually confused, if not outright incoherent, the speech was. If you just think about it, in one breath, he was urging the world to come together and collectively confront the threat of North Korea and then in the next breath, he is chiding the world over the last time it came together and did rally as an international community to stop a nuclear Iran. He's also withdrawn from the Paris agreement. He's gone around criticizing the United Nations as a body. So, this is a guy who goes around thumbing his nose at international entities and international attempts to confront global challenges, and so what moral standing does he have to call on the world to act collectively against North Korea?
(....)
11:08 a.m. Eastern
BLITZER: The speech — I sense and you may have a better appreciation of this than I did, got sort of polite applause from the international delegations, but certainly not enthusiastic applause.
JEFF ZELENY: Wolf, certainly that is true. Polite applause in a couple areas, but not much applause throughout the course of the 41-minute speech. Perhaps not surprisingly, it's difficult to align that parts of the world are going to hell. This was a very somber, dark speech if you will, and I remember thinking back to the first appearance that President Obama made here in 2009, as President, of course a far different reception. Of course, he had a booming, enthusiastic applause. The world views these two leaders differently, no question, but as we sort of process and tick through other elements of the speech, I do think one headline as well is refugees. He talked specifically about that and said the cost of resettling one refugee in the U.S., we can assist more than ten in their home region. So, again, that is his view. The nationalist view of the Trump side of the White House there, really speaking out against what many in his base, many evangelical actually support refugee resettlement. That is another issue we would be talking about a lot more but not for North Korea and Iran.
(....)
CNN’s Inside Politics
12:04 pm. Eastern
JOHN KING: What do we hear from President that matters most? It was remarkable to see a leader of any country, but the President of the United States, standing in the well of the United National General Assembly, threatening to totally destroy, not retaliate, not hurt, not, isolate, not prove a point, totally destroy a country.
(....)
CNN’s Wolf
1:02 p.m. Eastern
BLITZER: This was a no holds barred speech. How did it play among the gathering of world leaders?
JIM SCIUTTO: Wolf, I’ll tell you that comment, that threat to North Korea sparked an enormous reaction. I spoke a short time ago to a senior U.N. diplomat who described it to me this way, saying that he, diplomats around him were taken aback. He described it to me like a wind had gone through the room when the President uttered those words we will totally destroy North Korea, said, it was an emotional reaction. There were rumblings to hear an American President threaten, in so many words, to obliterate another country. Truly remarkable and with the Iran threat somewhat different, a sense in the room that this is an American President who may very well withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal, but I’ll tell you. It’s those words about North Korea particularly sparked a reaction in that room. Audible gasps, I'm told. Extremely unusual, an emotional reaction, as this diplomat said.
(....)
1:08 a.m. Eastern
 DAVID GREGORY: I mean, it's really frightening to hear an American president talk about obliterating any other country. The Axis of Evil speech that George W. Bush was certainly frightening and got controversial to a lot of people, but he didn't go that far. I think the audience was who was in the room, namely Russia, namely China, those people who could influence the North to say we don't want to do this, but we’re going to do something differently than successive administrations have done and we have not been able to deter North Korea. We’ve got to do something differently, whether it's some kind of preemptive attack. You’ve got to step up and really make it painful for North Korea or you’re forcing us, the United States, into a corner.
(....)
1:10 p.m. Eastern
GREGORY: This was very much Trump as a strong man, which I think he fashions himself as. My concern about the broader tone of the speech is that it really did push aside the idea of collective action and America as the leader of that collective action internationally and seemed to fortify the people who said, look. I will look after the interests of my own, whatever country that is from America to Russia.
|
|
By Nicholas Fondacaro
 In his first speech to the United Nations on Tuesday, President Trump put the rogue regimes of Iran and North Korea on notice by calling on the world to stand up to their threatening ways. But NBC Nightly News took exception to Trump’s targeting of Iran and defended them in an interview Anchor Lester Holt had with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.
“And minutes before President Trump ripped Iran in that nuclear deal in his speech today, I sat down with Iran's President Hassan Rouhani who pointed out U.N. watchdog in charge of policing Iran’s nuclear activities has thus far found Iran in compliance,” Holt touted as he led into the interview.
He then added that Rouhani “warned that the U.S. stands to lose trust and credibility on the world stage if it plays out its threat to abandon the deal.”
The most concerning question from Holt came near the end of his report. He asked the Iranian leader about how unfair it was for Trump to lump Iran in with North Korea:
The Trump administration representatives, President in New York, and they are putting Iran essentially in the same basket as North Korea, portraying both countries as a threat to stability and peace and calling on the world to act. How do you feel when you hear Iran and North Korea spoken about in the same breath?
Rouhani claimed that his country was nothing like North Korea in terms nuclear proliferation. “There is nothing hidden in North Korea,” he said. “Iran is completely the opposite point.”
Holt then quickly ended his report by chiding that the Trump administration had certified Iran was in compliance with the nuclear agreement. But there was a complete blackout of Iran’s continued collaboration with North Korea on ballistic missile technology, a fact long understood by the Pentagon.
And much like the North Korea’s “Rocketman,” as President Trump calls Kim Jong-un who is known for bombastic statements, Iranian lawmakers recently chanted “death to America” on the floor of their parliament. Rouhani himself has been quoted touting his country’s “nuclear victory,” something Holt’s meager reporting failed to bring up but NBC managed to cover once before.
It’s not surprising that Holt would blatantly omit damaging information about the Iranian government. For many months, NBC Nightly News had refused to report on any hostile actions by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard that put U.S. sailors at risk in the Strait of Hormuz.
But it’s no wonder Holt failed to call Rouhani out on his nonsense. The Iranian leader hit all the right talking points: He claimed the United States would lose credibility if Trump backed out of the nuclear deal and he praised Barack Obama for creating a positive atmosphere. Clearly, Holt’s allegiances lie with those who slam the President.
NBC’s backing of Iran was sponsored by: The American Petroleum Institute, Aleve, Oral-B, Claritin, and Safelite Auto Glass.
Transcript below:
NBC Nightly News
September 19, 2017
6:40:22 PM Eastern
LESTER HOLT: And minutes before President Trump ripped Iran in that nuclear deal in his speech today, I sat down with Iran's President Hassan Rouhani who pointed out U.N. watchdog in charge of policing Iran’s nuclear activities has thus far found Iran in compliance. And he warned that the U.S. stands to lose trust and credibility on the world stage if it plays out its threat to abandon the deal. Here’s some of our conversation.
[Cuts to video]
 HASSAN ROUHANI [via translator]: The exiting of the United States from such an agreement would carry a high cost. Meaning that subsequent to such a probable action by the United States of America, no one will trust America again. And there is no higher price to be paid than this. Because after such a possible scenario, which country would be willing to sit across the table from the United States of America and talk about international issues? This will mean that it will carry with it the lack of subsequent trust from countries towards the United States because the greatest capital that any country has is trust and credibility.
HOLT: Would you sit down and have a conversation with President Trump? Do you think that would be helpful?
ROUHANI: In the previous administration, perhaps the atmosphere, the proper atmosphere was being prepared for such a potential dialogue. However, the tone and the various positions taken by Mr. Trump thus far has defeated the possibility. Unless we see in the future and we witness a change in the positions of the United States of America. When the United States government in very transparently speaks of aim of regime change in Iran, talking in bilateral fashion becomes very meaningless. And under the current atmosphere-- In the current atmosphere I do not see the current requirements for such a meeting.
HOLT: The Trump administration representatives, President in New York, and they are putting Iran essentially in the same basket as North Korea, portraying both countries as a threat to stability and peace and calling on the world to act. How do you feel when you hear Iran and North Korea spoken about in the same breath?
ROUHANI: It is very incorrect to say such a thing. North Korea has said in a very straightforward manner that I seek nuclear weapons. It tests nuclear weapons. There is nothing hidden in North Korea, North Korea a country who today is in the nuclear club and it does have nuclear weapons. Iran is completely the opposite point.
[Cuts back to live]
HOLT: Despite President Trump’s harsh words, the Trump administration has certified Iran's compliance with the terms of the nuclear deal twice before and is scheduled to issue its next report in October.
|
|
By Clay Waters
 The New York Times’most activist environmental reporter Justin Gillis is leaving the paper, but not before one last Cassandra-style wail on the front of the Science section keyed to the recent major hurricanes that have hit the South: “The Unpredictable Human Factor.” Gillis, who has a knack for getting scary yet inaccurate stories on the paper’s front page, employed a condescending “told you so” tone apparently endemic to environmentalists. And another reporter's front-page story from Miami blamed low taxes and Republicans for the destruction waged by the likes of Hurricane Irma.
First a taste of Gillis's superior tone:
As Hurricane Harvey bore down on the Texas coast, few people in that state seemed to understand the nature of the looming danger.
The bulletins warned of rain falling in feet, not inches. Experts pleaded with the public to wake up. J. Marshall Shepherd, head of atmospheric sciences at the University of Georgia and a leading voice in American meteorology, wrote ahead of the storm that “the most dangerous aspect of this hurricane may be days of rainfall and associated flooding.”
Now we know how events in Texas turned out.
Dr. Shepherd and his colleagues have spent their careers issuing a larger warning, one that much of the public still chooses to ignore. I speak, of course, about the risks of climate change.
Because of atmospheric emissions from human activity, the ocean waters from which Harvey drew its final burst of strength were much warmer than they ought to have been, most likely contributing to the intensity of the deluge. If the forecasts from our scientists are anywhere close to right, we have seen nothing yet.
....
Scientists urged decades ago that we buy ourselves some insurance by cutting emissions. We yawned. Even today, when millions of people have awakened to the danger, tens of millions have not. So the political demand for change is still too weak to overcome the entrenched interests that want to block it.
In Washington, progress on climate change has stalled. The administration has announced its intent to withdraw from the global Paris climate accord. And top Trump appointees insist that the causes of climate change are too uncertain and the scientific forecasts too unreliable to be a basis for action.
This argument might have been halfway plausible 20 years ago -- or, if you want to be generous, even 10 years ago. But today?
....
As the challenges in the real world worsen, some senior Republicans continue to question the link between human-caused emissions and rising temperatures
Gillis quoted EPA head Scott Pruitt, then sneered:
Note that he acknowledges the planet is warming. Note that he offers no alternative hypothesis about the cause of that warming -- nor will he ever, for the simple reason that there is no plausible alternative. But still, he clings to uncertainty as a reason to do nothing.
Gillis stood up for scientific predictions (even though the recent global warming hiatus caught them all off guard):
The sea ice in the Arctic is collapsing in front of our eyes. Even more ominously, land ice is melting at an accelerating pace, threatening a future rise of the sea even faster than that of today.
....
So despite arguments like Mr. Pruitt’s, a century of climate science has brought us to the point where we can say this definitively: We are running enormous risks. We are putting nothing less than the stability of human civilization on the line.
Tuesday’s edition also featured front-page story by Lizette Alvarez from Miami, “Waters Rise and Hurricanes Roar, but Florida Keeps On Building.” Alvarez blamed low taxes and Republicans for the destruction waged by the likes of Hurricane Irma, though she herself admits the government had much to do with the environmental degradation of the Everglades.
Many saw last week’s storm as another dress rehearsal for the Big One. But it wasn’t much of a reckoning for a state mostly uninterested in wrestling with the latest round of runaway development, environmental degradation and the mounting difficulties from catastrophic storms....
....
The Florida Everglades became the symbol for shortsighted intentions gone wrong. The Army Corps of Engineers tried to control the water flow through the Everglades to help the sugar industry flourish and to make way for growth. Instead, the corps’s work crippled the river of grass, and half of the Everglades has disappeared. Every corner of Florida has faced the onslaught of growth.
....
But in a low-tax state, something has to give....Elsewhere in tax-averse Florida, though, far less is being done, and difficult measures, like revising building codes to protect from flood, are fiercely opposed by developers. The state’s aging infrastructure also makes it harder, and more expensive, to grapple with hurricanes. Federal spending on important projects remains modest as well. So sewer systems, canals, roads, and bridges go mostly neglected.
|
|
By Nicholas Fondacaro
 ABC’s self-described “eating pizza” expert, Jimmy Kimmel was at it again on Tuesday, admittedly politicizing his son’s medical condition to push for socialized medicine. This time he was targeting Republican Senator Bill Cassidy and Senate Republicans with disgusting charges of aiming to do cruel things with the lives and health care of Americans. In all, Kimmel’s description paints the GOP as villains in a strait to DVD Hollywood flop.
“And this new bill actually does pass the Jimmy Kimmel Test, but a different Jimmy Kimmel Test,” he declared, noting that Cassidy wanted his bill to live up to Kimmel’s situation. “This one, your child with a preexisting condition would get the care he needs if and only if his father is Jimmy Kimmel or otherwise you might be screwed.”
During his nearly seven-minute-long tirade, he asserted that the bill would be kicked 30 million people off their insurance along with a host of other terrible things:
Coverage for all: No, in fact, it will kick about 30 million American off of insurance. Preexisting conditions: No. If the bill passes individual states can let insurance companies charge you more if you have a preexisting condition. You’ll find that little loophole later in the document after it says they can’t. They can and they will.
But will it lower premiums? Well, in fact, for lots of people the bill will result in higher premiums. And as for as no lifetime caps go, the states can decide on that too, which means there will be lifetime caps in many states.
“They’re trying to sneak this scam of a bill they cooked up in without an analysis from the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office,” he added a short time later.
But that really makes you wonder. If the bill was really being sneaked through, then how does he know what’s in it? And being that the bill is classified as “major legislation” it has to get a CBO score before getting voted on, but since it hasn’t yet, where is Kimmel getting his information? For crying out loud, he admitted that “this is not my area of expertise. My area of expertise is eating pizza and that’s really about it.”
So all of that might indicate that he’s just working off old numbers. But even in the previous CBO reports for past GOP healthcare bills, the office explained that the roughly 30 million without insurance was primarily driven by people CHOOSING not to purchase healthcare.
The CBO noted that most Americans lived in a state where they would continue to receive the benefits he claimed were being taken away for all. And they also found that most Americans would receive a 20 – 30 percent decrease in their premiums, which would make what Kimmel said a lie.
He also stuck up for ObamaCare, smearing the GOP with claims that “even though eight years ago they didn’t want anyone to have healthcare at all.” Well, the facts of that matter were simple. ObamaCare was failing with most people having one expensive insurance option and some none at all. And under ObamaCare people experienced massive premium hikes, over 100 percent in Arizona.
According to Kimmel, the GOP really didn’t want Americans to have good health care period. “They’re counting on you to be so overwhelmed with all the information you just trust them to take care of you, but they’re not taking care of you,” he decried.“They’re taking care of the people who give them money like insurance companies.”
“We can’t let them do this to our children, our senior citizens, and our veterans, or to any of us,” he proclaimed.
In a cry of desperation for socialized medicine, he championed the health care systems of other countries: “It’s unbelievable. Somehow Japan, England, and Canada, and Germany, France, they all figured healthcare out. And don’t say they have terrible healthcare because it’s just not true.”
But the pizza eating expert was 100 percent wrong on what good health care looked like around the world. All one has to do was look at the case of newborn Charlie Gard. Because of healthcare rationing, a British court put him on a long path to death because they didn’t want to waste their resources on him or allow the family to take him to America for treatment.
We're still waiting to see if Kimmel agrees with that aspect of socialized medicine if that were his son.
Transcript below:
ABC
Jimmy Kimmel Live
September 19, 2017
11:50:21 PM Eastern
JIMMY KIMMEL: I know you guys are going to find this hard to believe, but a few months ago after my son had open heart surgery, which was something I spoke about on the air, a politician, a senator named Bill Cassidy from Louisiana was on my show and he wasn’t very honest. It seemed like he was being honest. He got a lot f credit and attention for coming off like a regular reasonable voice in the Republican Party when it came to health care for coming up with something—I didn’t name it this, he named it this—the Jimmy Kimmel Test. Which was, in a nutshell, no family should be denied medical care emergency or otherwise because they can’t afford it.
He agreed to that. He said he would only support a health care bill that made sure a child like mine would get the health coverage he needs no matter how much money his parents make. And that did not have annual or life time caps. These insurance companies, they want caps to limit how much they can pay out. So, for instance, if your son has to have three open heart surgeries it can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars apiece. If he hits his life time cap of let’s say a million dollars, the rest of his life he’s on his own.
Now, our current plan protects Americans from these caps and prevents insurance providers from jacking up the rates for people who have preexisting conditions of all types. And Senator Cassidy said his plan would do that too. He said all this on television many times.
 (…)
So last week, Senators Bill Cassidy and Lindsey Graham proposed a new bill, the Graham/Cassidy bill. And this new bill actually does pass the Jimmy Kimmel Test, but a different Jimmy Kimmel Test. This one, your child with a preexisting condition would get the care he needs if and only if his father is Jimmy Kimmel or otherwise you might be screwed.
Now, I don’t know what happened to Bill Cassidy, but when he was on this publicity tour he listed his demands for a health care bill very clearly. This were his words: He said he wants coverage for all, no discrimination based on preexisting conditions, lower premiums for middle-class families, and no life time caps. And guess what. The new bill does none of those things.
Coverage for all: No, in fact it will kick about 30 million American off of insurance. Preexisting conditions: No. If the bill passes individual states can let insurance companies charge you more if you have a preexisting condition. You’ll find that little loophole later in the document after it says they can’t. They can and they will.
But will it lower premiums? Well, in fact, for lots of people the bill will result in higher premiums. And as for as no life time caps go, the states can decide on that too, which means there will be life time caps in many states.
So, not only did Bill Cassidy fail the Jimmy Kimmel Test, he failed the Bill Cassidy Test. He failed his own test. And you don’t see that happen very much. This bill he came up with is actually worse than the one that-- Thank God Republicans like Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski and john McCain torpedoed over the summer. And I hope they have the courage and the good sense to do that again with this one, because these other guys who claim they want Americans to have better healthcare—even though eight years ago they didn’t want anyone to have health care at all—They’re trying to sneak this scam of a bill they cooked up in without an analysis from the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office.
They don’t even want you to see it. They’re having one hearing—I read the hearing is being held in the Homeland Security Committee, which has nothing to do with healthcare.
(…)
And that’s what these guys are relying on. They’re counting on you to be so over whelmed with all the information you just trust them to take care of you, but they’re not taking care of you. They’re taking care of the people who give them money like insurance companies.
(…)
This is not my area of expertise. My area of expertise is eating pizza and that’s really about it. But we can’t let them do this to our children, our senior citizens, and our veterans, or to any of us.
And by the way, before you post a nasty Facebook message saying I’m politicizing my son’s health problems, I want to let you know, I’m politicizing my son’s health problems because I have too.
(…)
It’s unbelievable. Somehow Japan, England, and Canada, and Germany, France, they all figured healthcare out. And don’t say they have terrible health care because it’s just not true. This is a bad bill.
(…)
|
|
By Kyle Drennen
In a glowing profile marking the 10th anniversary of left-wing political satire website Funny or Die, on Tuesday’s NBC Today, correspondent Cynthia McFadden gushed: “Well, the writers at Funny or Die readily admit to leaning left, but they say their goal is to create comedy that transcends party lines....‘Funny is funny’ is their mantra.”
Calling them “the hottest political jokesters around,” McFadden declared: “Humor with a purpose is what they call it.” A clip played of comedian Zach Galifianakis’s Between Two Ferns interview with former President Barack Obama for the site and the reporter enthused: “That Between Two Ferns video led a million people to sign up for ObamaCare.”
Apparently the “purpose” of Funny or Die’s political “humor” is to push Democratic Party agenda items.
Touting “a rare glimpse inside their new comedy war room in Los Angeles,” McFadden proclaimed: “They take their political funny very seriously around here....And one of their secret weapons is this guy....David Litt, a former speech writer for President Obama...”
She took a particularly familiar tone with the former White House staffer:
You were 24 years old when you went to work with the White House....You were a bit of a child prodigy, if I may say so....Could’ve gone to college at 12, 13....Now 31, he’s written a candid and self-deprecating book about his White House years.
At the end of the report, she revealed that Litt was the son of a friend: “Well, full disclosure, I’ve known David Litt all of his life. His mother was my best friend in law school.” So much for detached journalistic objectivity.
The biased story was brought to viewers by Ford, Honda, and Dietz & Watson.
Here is a full transcript of the September 19 segment:
8:47 AM ET
SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: Alright, we’re back, 8:47. Funny or Die, a little website founded by Will Ferrell and a few friends, launched 10 years ago.
MATT LAUER: A decade later, you may be surprised at who’s working there. NBC’s Cynthia McFadden’s here with the people behind the laughs. Cynthia, good morning.
 CYNTHIA MCFADDEN: Good morning, everybody. Well, the writers at Funny or Die readily admit to leaning left, but they say their goal is to create comedy that transcends party lines. The highest compliment, they say, is when people from all political points of view laugh. “Funny is funny” is their mantra. Take a look.
[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Figure of Speeches; Fmr. White House Writer’s New Life in Comedy]
UNIDENTIFIED MAN [ACTOR PLAYING TRUMP]: So, I called this news conference – and you’re gonna – I mean you’re gonna flip over this, you’re gonna love this.
MCFADDEN: They’re some of the hottest political jokesters around, the folks at Funny or Die, with 50 million online followers.
ZACH GALIFIANAKIS [BETWEEN TWO FERNS]: I have to know, what is it like to be the last black president?
BARACK OBAMA: Seriously? What’s it like for this to be the last time you ever talk to a president?
MCFADDEN: Humor with a purpose is what they call it.
OBAMA: I’m gonna press this [big red button].
GALIFIANAKIS: Don’t touch that please.
[ALARM SOUNDS AND BACKGROUND CURTAIN DROPS]
MCFADDEN: That Between Two Ferns video led a million people to sign up for ObamaCare.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN B [FUNNY OR DIE WRITER]: It’s also a bill that won’t go anywhere.
MCFADDEN: We had a rare glimpse inside their new comedy war room in Los Angeles.
UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN [FUNNY OR DIE WRITER]: Just make a health care song.
MCFADDEN: A rapid response team to try and keep up with politics these days. The day we visited –
UNIDENTIFIED MAN C [FUNNY OR DIE WRITER]: The biggest story politically right now is Bernie [Sanders] introduces Medicare for all bill.
MCFADDEN: What’s the funny in it? They say watch Sanders’ finger, he makes a lot of good points.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN D [FUNNY OR DIE WRITER]: It’s clear as day he’s typing out socialism, communism.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN E [FUNNY OR DIE WRITER]: He’s doing morse code for socialism, look at the finger.
MCFADDEN: They take their political funny very seriously around here.
DAVID LITT: Because politically it’s still difficult.
MCFADDEN: And one of their secret weapons is this guy.
WOMAN: It’s such an amazing resource to be able to go to David and say, “I don’t get why these things – how these things came together, why they happened.”
MCFADDEN: David is David Litt, a former speech writer for President Obama, who never intended to end up in politics. But as a senior at Yale, a plane trip changed his life.
LITT: There was that little airplane television in the seat in front of me and I saw Barack Obama give a speech. I remember the exact moment.
OBAMA: People who love this country can change it.
LITT: By the time that plane landed, I was ready to do whatever it took to help be a part of that campaign.
MCFADDEN: You were 24 years old when you went to work with the White House.
LITT: Yeah, which at the time I thought was very old. I was like, “I’ve been out of college for two full years.”
MCFADDEN: You were a bit of a child prodigy, if I may say so.
LITT: Well, you may say so, okay.
MCFADDEN: Could’ve gone to college at 12, 13.
LITT: Yeah, I’m glad I didn’t – but yeah.
MCFADDEN: Now 31, he’s written a candid and self-deprecating book about his White House years. You say the President didn’t know your name until the second term.
LITT: He thought my name was “Lips” rather than Litt briefly. I think he thought it was a nickname, I’m not really sure. But the thing is, when the President of the United States gets your name wrong, you can’t correct him. I mean, he’s got more important things to do. So I was like, alright, Lips it is.
MCFADDEN: For four years, Litt was in charge of one of the President’s most high-profile annual speeches, the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.
OBAMA: I want to especially thank all the members who took a break from their exhausting schedule of not passing any laws to be here tonight.
MCFADDEN: The process involved some dozen writers and 600 jokes. 600 jokes for one speech?
LITT: It’s 600 jokes for one speech. And maybe that speech would end up with about 30 jokes in it. And so, it was a very selective process.
MCFADDEN: According to Litt, presidential humor can play an important role.
LITT: There’s two things to me that jokes can do for a president. One is it’s just a reminder that this person is human, “I’m just a person, I make mistakes.” And so, self-deprecating humor can do that. And the other thing that comedy can do is tell the truth in a way that you’re not always allowed to in politics.
MCFADDEN: And these days, he says, nothing could be more important than that.
LITT: I think young people recognize that our politics right now is not working the way it’s supposed to and comedy is a way of acknowledging that without totally giving up on the system. So having the sense of the absurd but also a sense of possibility and a sense of hope at the end.
MCFADDEN: Well, full disclosure, I’ve known David Litt all of his life. His mother was my best friend in law school. And was David was about – when David was about two years old, he and I were left alone in a room together with a fish tank. And I’m going, “Oh, look at the pretty fishy,” and David proceeded to list the Latin names for all the fish.
[LAUGHTER]
MCFADDEN: I said to his mom, “Have you talked to him lately?” Anyway, smart guy, very funny, too. So, who knows?
GUTHRIE: Fun story. Cynthia, thank you.
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment