Fact: The breathless claim that Fox News' ratings recently spiked thanks to the White House's public critique is bogus hype -- hype that Fox News and the Beltway press have relentlessly pushed.
It's just not true...read on
Chris Wallace had a chance to prove to America that he actually has journalistic integrity and is not part of the Fox Sphere of phony reporting when he interviewed Rush Limbaugh on Fox News Sunday. What we got was FOX News #1, fair and balanced reporter acting like a bowl of jelly for Limbaugh's rants. During his post mortem of FNS, he topped his uninformative and ridiculous interview of Limbaugh thus way:
I just want to give you my reaction. First of all I had never met him. Very nice, very sweet and I've have to say vulnerable guy and if you watch the interview you'll see because he talks very candidly about drug rehab...
Wow, is Wallace this dimwitted? Rush is doing a major interview with FNS and he's shocked, shocked I tell you that he's such a sweet guy. Did Wallace want to date him or interview him? I couldn't tell, could you?
Chris Wallace has been a very vocal critic of the Obama administration and has even gone so far as to say that the White House is a big bunch of crybabies. Did you ever hear him ever say anything like that before of another administration?
When Anita Dunn called Fox News an arm of the Republican Party on CNN, that didn't make Wallace happy either.
On Bill O'Reilly's program he said that his show is a truly fair and balanced program:
WALLACE: ...That’s exactly my position: I think Fox News Sunday is a truly fair and balanced show.
O’REILLY: You’re not an ideological show at all.
WALLACE: No. And it’s like they refuse to take “yes” for an answer. There’s a kind of childishness or pettiness about them…
Really? Then where was Wallace's "balance" with Rush? If you're operating as a real interviewer, then Wallace would have had a handful of tough questions that would ask him some other than his opinions. Rush Limbaugh rarely goes on TV except for Fox, and would never do a political talk show where an anchor could actually have a week to prepare at least some moderately difficult questions for him.
So when Rush decided to go on Wallace's show, it was a chance for him to ask questions that would typically be skeptical of his positions. Instead, Wallace acted like a fashion reporter talking about a new line of footwear and stood there listening to typical Limbaugh rants without no fact checking or follow questions.
He could have at least made some sort of effort. After Limbaugh made the outrageous statement that President Obama didn't care about Afghanistan, the best Wallace could do was grin and say, you don't really believe that?
And when his question came up about Limbaugh being rejected by the NFL, couldn't Wallace have at least read some of Limbaugh's comments back to him and make him defend his racist comments about African Americans? All he did was give Rush a platform to whine about a "conspiracy" against him.
The news media that so quickly supported Fox News against the White House should now turn their sights on Chris Wallace and ask themselves if he isn't playing his part perfectly for Roger Ailes.
This interview was an embarrassment and Wallace should be held accountable by his media peers. If Jake Tapper of ABC or any other media entity wants to defend Fox, then they need to hold those who make a mockery out of the profession accountable.
OK, cue up the O'Reilly denunciations of the Pew Research Center:
The Fox News Channel is viewed by Americans in more ideological terms than other television news networks. And while the public is evenly divided in its view of hosts of cable news programs having strong political opinions, more Fox News viewers see this as a good thing than as a bad thing.
Nearly half of Americans (47%) say they think of Fox News as “mostly conservative,” 14% say it is “mostly liberal,” and 24% say it is “neither in particular.” Opinion about the ideological orientation of other TV news outlets is more mixed: while many view CNN and the three broadcast networks as mostly liberal, about the same percentages say they are neither in particular. However, somewhat more say MSNBC is mostly liberal than say it is neither in particular, by 36% to 27%.
The perceptions of those who regularly tune into these news networks are similar to those of the public. Nearly half (48%) of regular Fox viewers say the network is mostly conservative. About four-in-ten (41%) regular viewers of CNN describe the network as mostly liberal and 36% of regular MSNBC viewers say the same about that network....read on.
I'm surprised it's not much higher, but that's because I imagine there are many people who don't tune into it enough to really know what's what, and that's part of the reason that it freaked Fox out after the White House called them on it. And who watches Fox Noise and would possibly think it's liberal? My only guesses are militia members and a lot of teabaggers. Do some people really view BillO as a Lib?
I've posted a lot of clips with Jane Hall on The O'Reilly Factor. She often was paired up with the uber-right winger Bernard Goldberg and usually BillO would wind up yelling at her because she didn't agree with his point of view. Her demeanor has always been gentle so I always found it upsetting that BillO would scold her. I mean, he even cut off her microphone once, which was odd for such a mild mannered speaker. She left FOX recently and I did wonder why.
Howard Kurtz tackled the "Should have the Obama administration called FOX News the opposition?" question in his Sunday "Reliable Sources" segment on CNN, and although Hall thought it wasn't a smart move by the administration, she let it out that she quit FOX because they stopped debating the issues. She cited Glenn Beck's "scary" presence as a reason why she left. It kinds of makes the arguments moot at this point by the mainstreamers who are sticking up for FOX. Can't they handle the truth?
Another big problem I have is the way cable TV uses pundits, and it's not just FOX. They constantly will pair up a right-wing opinionator with a journalist who they just assume is a liberal. The journalist usually will go on TV, but isn't in love with this because it puts their "neutrality" at issue. Hall also expressed her displeasure on that front.
KURTZ: Did you feel like you were being used to give Fox a certain degree of legitimacy, coming on as a media professor?
HALL: No, I didn't. The reason I left was in part because they've had less debates than they used to. Is it a fair point to say how much debate is there on MSNBC? How many Republican strategists? We have a bifurcation of the media.
KURTZ: Wait a second. The reason you left is because you feel they have less debate than they used to. In other words, it used to be "Hannity and Colmes," now it's just Hannity. It used to be Bernie and Jane. Now it's just Bernie.
HALL: I think there's less debate than there was. And I'm also, frankly, uncomfortable with Beck, who I think should be called out as somebody whose language is way over the top. And it's scary.
KURTZ: Was that a factor in your decision to leave Fox?
HALL: Yes, it was.
You can see that she didn't go on gunning to attack FOX; Kurtz simply caught a remark and seized on it. Then, as usual, Howie had to defend FOX News, but in so doing, he admitted that Lou Dobbs is an offensive right-winger, just like Beck, in his own commentary about the dispute.
KURTZ: Let me give you my two cents here. This is also polarizing. You either have to take the position that Fox is a courageous news organization or a threat to western civilization. I have criticized things that O'Reilly has said, that Hannity has said. Certainly, on this program, I told Glenn Beck that he was being offensive with words that he had for a Muslim member of Congress. At the same time, I don't think an entire organization should be judged by a few commentaries, any more than I think it is fair to judge CNN by the things that Lou Dobbs says. Look at some of the people at Fox.
I wrote down some names here. Major Garrett used to work at CNN. Bill Hemmer used to work at CNN. Greta Van Susteren used to work at CNN. Chris Wallace used to work at ABC and NBC. Did they all drink the Kool-Aid when they went there? Sometimes, Fox's reflexive opposition to Obama bleeds into its news coverage, as you were saying, Nico. But I don't think it's fair to tar everyone with the same brush. You want to take that on?
Look, Howie, Ailes sets the agenda. Even if certain people working on Fox haven't been drinking the "Kool-aid" (*cough*Shep*cough*Smith*cough) the cable network is a propaganda arm. If you don't like Obama saying so, fine, but the truth is the truth.
PITNEY: I think you paint it a little too moderately. Take their flagship news program "Special Report With Brett Baier." George Mason did a study, 80 percent of the coverage is negative.
KURTZ: Toward Obama?
PITNEY: Toward Obama.
KURTZ: Is that on the opinion round table?
PITNEY: No. Just the first 30 minutes.
Says it all.
Obama officials went on the offensive on the talk show circuit last Sunday, reminding America and the corporate media that Fox News is not a legitimate news organization.
Staying true to their entertainment format, on Monday Fox News responded by putting up a poll on their website and what do you know...all of the choices are incorrect and none of them allow for the possibility that Obama is right.
What a knee-slapper! Feel free to re-write your own reality-based poll for them in the comments.
I generally don't watch Fox News; it's bad for my blood pressure and health. Further, my husband got tired of me looking for something to throw at the TV. So I leave the Fox viewings to other members of the team. But I happened to be flipping channels and caught this exchange on The O'Reilly Factor and it had me reeling from the Wonderland topsy-turvy nature of it. Dave already discussed this clip a little.) In contemplating Rush Limbaugh being dropped from the group looking to purchase the St. Louis Rams. Juan Williams, for whom no conservative can do wrong, predictably defends Limbaugh, saying that all of Rush's statements do not constitute racism, but comedy. Seriously.
But then it took a turn into weirdness:
The Washington Times reports on the entire back-and-forth that continues this afternoon. While discussing “Barack The Magic Negro” song that Rush Limbaugh played, Williams and Ballentine, both African American, disagreed on whether that was “racial”.
Just before the end of the segment, Ballentine said, “You can go back to the porch, Juan. You can go back. It’s ok.”
He was almost gleeful while bragging about it on Twitter: “ok howd i do u hear me tell jaun back to the porch lmao” he wrote, among several other comments. Today, he wrote, “You gotta love how now Iam the racist LMAO gotta love the washington post and the GOP.”
The Times also has a clip of his web radio show, and he wasn’t remorseful in any way:
Now if you want to take what I said about Juan Williams as racial, you go right ahead. All I said was he could go back to the porch. I didn’t call him a house negro. I said he could go back to the porch. Now if you took it as such, that means you took it as such.
I think we've gotten to a weird, non-reality-based place when two African-American men on Fox News Channel look at and/or trade racial slurs and then argue they're not racial.
But then again, weirdness and non-reality is par for course for FNC. After all, the media channel that operates as a propaganda arm for the GOP, hires Glenn Beck and keeps him on no matter how embarrassingly stupid and wrong he is and yet fires a liberal commentator for "having a reputation of defending cop-killers and racists"m, apparently for defending Van Jones. Or for example, publishing the results of the internal poll they took of an imagined mano a mano between FNC and the White House.
From the internals of the new Fox poll:
The Obama administration is criticizing FOX News Channel for its coverage of the administration. If the disagreement between the Obama administration and FOX News Channel continues, who do you think will come out on top?
Administration 39%
Fox News 43%
Breaking: Fox finds more think Fox will defeat the White House! I wonder if this will persuade the White House communications team to drop its crusade.
I don't think Fox can even convince themselves they're a credible news organization anymore.
As Media Matters sez, Fox News isn't a news organization, it's a political organization.
Open thread below...
Sometimes something you see on TV does come as a surprise no matter what the motivation behind it. The Factor highlights Goldberg with a Weekdays With Bernie segment so that FOX can bang the drum on librul bias. Bernie Goldberg has made a living out of trying to uncover and expose all the dirty hippie liberal bias in the media, but as BillO was playing the usual conservative victim card that FOX News lives on, Bernie stunned the loofah man. Oh Bernie, said BillO. Why oh why are we attacked so much? We're the only network that is fair and balanced and ... sniff...sniff ... we pay such a heavy price for it.
Bernie begins by sticking up for Roger Ailes and his right wing propaganda network, but then Bernie took a U-turn into reality. He praised FOX for breaking stories that the MSM won't and they are sooo jealous that they throw spitballs at the battles ship ... BUT ....
Goldberg:...this is what the so called mainstream media do. They get angry at FOX. This is wrong. This is the spitballs at the battleship argument, but sometimes Bill -- and whether you acknowledge it or not I'm going to state it -- sometimes FOX brings on the criticism itself. There are some programs on FOX that are not only NOT fair and balanced, they're commentary shows. They don't have to be, but they brag about how fair and balanced they are. They don't cover rallies and tea parties, they cheerlead rallies and tea parties, and as a journalist I am totally against that.
O'Reilly: All right ...
Goldberg: And to that extent the criticism is legitimate. By and large it's not...
O'Reilly: The problem there though is that all editorial pages cheerlead for their crew so if you read any newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, the LA Times, any newspaper in the country, they'll be cheerleading for the country global warming and they'll be saying, hey get out on Earth Day...
Goldberg: Right.
O'Reilly: Do this, do that, OK, fine and I don't have any problem with that. Wait Bernie. I don't have any problem with get out on Earth Day and be environmentally correct. No problem, they all do it. But if you then take a commentary, clearly label this and then they say, hey you tea party people, go on out there and show them that you don't like this big government intrusion. What's the difference?
Goldberg: the difference...I don't want to get too inside baseball with you.
O'Reilly: Come on, Bernie. What's the difference?
Goldberg: Here's a good answer. Don't pretend that you're being objective. Don't go on the air ... I don't mean you, I mean others on this network. Don't go on the air and say these tea parties are a cross section of America, they are not a cross section of America. Don't pretend to be a journalist if you're not a journalist. If you want to be a commentator and comment then be ...
BillO:...well let's get Glenn Beck do, Glenn beck comes on and he basically says I'm every man, I'm not a journalist, he says he's not a journalist, "I'm every man and I'm worried about the country and this is why I'm worried," and he has the blackboard and he has this and this is who I like, tea party guys and this is who I don't like, whoever Beck doesn't like...I don't see any subterfuge there, Sean Hannity comes on right after the Factor and Hannity says look, I'm a Reagan Republican, that's who I am, Sean Hannity. He's not trying to fool anybody, not trying to say anything like that. he says, "I'm a Reagan Republican so this is how I see the world. I mean, come on Bernie, these are legitimate stances, every man, Reagan Republican. What's the beef.
Goldberg: The commentary part of it is totally legitimate, but to give false information to because you're a commentator is unacceptable.
O'Reilly: If it's false information I agree, but I haven't seen a lot of that.
Goldberg: Wait a minute, are you telling me that you think those people at the tea parties were a cross section of America. There are as many liberal democrats as conservatives, there are as many people who support Obama
O'Reilly:I didn't hear any person say there were as many liberal democrats...
Goldberg: Oh, I did..I did, you want a few names?
O'Reilly: No!
Goldberg: You want a few names? Yea I know you don't...
Those people pretend that they're journalists at the same time I'm not a journalist. Well, if you're not a journalist don't pretend to be one ...---
Goldberg: They go on the air and give their opinions, which is fine with me. They then state as facts things..
O'Reilly: Facts?
Goldberg:Facts, things that aren't facts at all.
Bernie called them liars. Wow, and he got hot and bothered with BillO in this segment -- and when he challenged Bill, The O Dog backed down. Why wasn't Beck worried about the country for eight years under Bush when this country was almost demolished by the conservative movement? Because a Republican was in office -- so his everyman act is a lie, but we know that. The folks here at C&L understand that. Hannity and Beck aren't the only two people making a mockery out of the FOX News brand. I wish Bernie would have gotten mad enough to drop a few names to BillO's audience. He may have gotten fired over it.
It's the whole network that cheers on the tea parties, that attacks almost every position President Obama was elected to legislate and that make up facts to conform to their opinions.
No doubt Goldberg is thinking of scenes like this one from Sean Hannity's show, featuring "reporter" Griff Jenkins positively cheerleading the Tea Party Express crowds.
BillO uses false equivalencies to justify FOX's behavior, which is wrong. FOX bills itself as the only fair and balanced network and even runs ads denouncing other cable news networks ... for their failures to cover the tea parties the way they did.
Chris Wallace has been whining at an accelerated pace lately about President Obama and that doesn't bode well for him or his show.
WALLACE: ...That’s exactly my position: I think Fox News Sunday is a truly fair and balanced show.
O’REILLY: You’re not an ideological show at all.
WALLACE: No. And it’s like they refuse to take “yes” for an answer. There’s a kind of childishness or pettiness about them…
O’REILLY: You know, that’s a…it’s an immaturity that if you don’t …if you don’t hold our line, we’re just gonna ice you.
He used to maintain the appearance of a neutral talk show because the media would never dare to call out a fellow Villager even though we've been exposing him for years now as a political hack.
Here he is again whining the night away on his own show:
Chris Wallace continued to criticize the president Sunday. "Every president is thin-skinned, but I wonder whether this administration, this White House, has a particular problem with criticism," he said.
His rating were always terrible for FOX on the Sunday Talk Show circuit and on Sept 13, he remained firmly at the bottom of the barrel. And ratings are the GOD that drives all TV shows, but I still find it unlikely that Rupert will fire him.
Eric Boehlert's column hits the mark on Wallace:
The subsequent whining and childish name-calling from Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace became incessant and, of course, revealed more about the bitter and bruised host than it did the White House. No doubt the pity party that the thin-skinned journalist threw for himself in the wake of the embarrassing snub was genuine. But it went on for so many days and became so consuming that it seemed there was more to it than Wallace being forced to watch the Obama newsmaking parade from the sidelines. I think the slow-motion temper tantrum perhaps reflected Wallace's larger realization that his days of being taken seriously as a journalist are fading and that he can no longer be associated with the collectively unhinged Fox News family and maintain any dignity in the process.
{}
By contrast, Fox News anchor Shepard Smith had the courage and the decency earlier this year to call out the right-wing "crazies" on the fringe who targeted Obama and were feeding off incessant, conspiratorial hatred -- hate "that's not based in fact," as Smith stressed. (Naturally, right-wingers online immediately called for Smith's firing.) At least that Fox anchor expressed a commonsense concern about what that kind of raw, irrational hostility does to a democracy. But not Wallace. He knows to sit on his hands and to keep his mouth shut.Except, of course, when he's not busy spreading nonsense like the charade about the "death book," an absolutely absurd conspiracy theory that Wallace must have known came without even the faintest hint of reality to it. (Here's the theory: In order to contain health care costs, the federal government under Obama is using a booklet on end-of-life counseling to urge U.S. veterans to kill themselves; it's trying to convince them that their lives aren't worth living.)
It was the type of patented foolery you'd expect a proud partisan like Sean Hannity to push. But it was Wallace who signed on as the smear's chief sponsor. It was Wallace who sat through two Fox News Sunday segments teasing out purposefully ignorant questions about how bureaucrats were trying to off veterans. Wallace played dumb like it was an Olympic sport. While the other Sunday shows were at least trying to engage in actual civic debate, Wallace spent his Sunday clowning on air.
And as a bonus, Wallace may have made the single dumbest statement uttered on a Sunday-morning talk show this year. Playing dumb, Wallace wanted to know why anyone would think about end-of-life counseling unless they're, you know, dying [emphasis added]:
Usually people don't even contemplate end of life until they're in an irreversible coma.
Flash to Wallace: When somebody slides into in "an irreversible coma," it's a little late for them to begin end-of-life counseling.
With the "death book" production, Wallace didn't merely engage in lazy journalism or allow his guest to sidestep important questions, he served as archetype -- as a co-sponsor -- of the debacle. He plucked the story (a smear campaign, really) from relative obscurity, and then he trampled the facts in hopes of launching the story nationally...read on
Maybe FOX will decide to bump him and make Glenn Beck the host of their Sunday Morning talk show. You know, a kind of Jerry Springer format for politics where white supremacists come on and throw chairs at African American guests and other guests call each other racists and socialists and Beck hands out apple pie to them as long as they agree to spend a week in his imaginary FEMA camps whose existence he can't disprove.
Poor widdle Chris Wallace. That mean ol' Barack Obama won't come on his show but he's appearing on virtually every other Sunday show...including Univision, fer cryin' out loud. Univision! Oh, the humiliation of being snubbed like the ugly girl at the school dance.
Wallace goes on The O'Reilly Factor and says he just can't understand why the Obama administration would be so mean to him. In his mind, it's simply childish to refuse a spot on Fox News:
WALLACE: ...That’s exactly my position: I think Fox News Sunday is a truly fair and balanced show.
O’REILLY: You’re not an ideological show at all.
WALLACE: No. And it’s like they refuse to take “yes” for an answer. There’s a kind of childishness or pettiness about them…
O’REILLY: You know, that’s a…it’s an immaturity that if you don’t …if you don’t hold our line, we’re just gonna ice you.
Oy. The mind reels at the sheer hypocrisy of it all. Maybe the average Fox viewer has a memory that lasts no more than 10 minutes (which may explain the popularity of Glenn Beck) and thinks that the constant featuring of William "I am NEVER right about anything" Kristol constitutes being "fair and balanced", but does it seem odd to any critical thinking person why Barack Obama would choose not to legitimize the outlet that pushed the tea parties, madrassas, terrorist fist jabs, and even jokingly fantasized about killing him? And yet to widdle Chris, it's petty of the President to not want to be sandbagged as Wallace did with Bill Clinton.
Let me make it easier for you and the rest of the Fox crew, Chris. Obama has tried reaching out to you. Remember the interview he did with you over Rev. Wright? Your editorial department (read Mr. Ailes) decided that even if Obama reached out, that wouldn't stop your insinuating of his Otherness constantly. The next time you ask why Obama won't go on Fox, just have a gander at this:
'Nuff said.
(h/t Heather)
Wow, Bill O'Reilly goes where the Baucus Dogs fail to go. In a place far, far away to explore strange, new worlds, and to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no ConservaDem has gone before."
The Public Option!
Bill O'Reilly backed the public option on the Factor even though he pronounced it dead. His friend Glenn Beck and the rest of FOX News must still have their mouths wide open and drool running down their chins.
Is he truly serious or was it a calculated move to shake up the debate on FOX?
O'REILLY: The public option now is done. We discussed this, it's not going to happen. But you say that this little marketplace that they're going to set up, whereby the federal government would subsidize insurance for some Americans, that is, in your opinion, a public option?
OWCHARENKO: Well, it has massive new federal regulation. So you don't necessarily need a public option if the federal government is going to control and regulate the type of health insurance that Americans can buy.
O'REILLY: But you know, I want that, Ms. Owcharenko. I want that. I want, not for personally for me, but for working Americans, to have a option, that if they don't like their health insurance, if it's too expensive, they can't afford it, if the government can cobble together a cheaper insurance policy that gives the same benefits, I see that as a plus for the folks.
O'Reilly is a socialist now. And backing the public option is going to freak FOX News out. Last week he was on with David Axlerod and was for having the Feds override states' rights.
I apparently missed the largest flash mob in American history today, and it took place just a few blocks from my house. Michelle Malkin and the redstaters have been abuzz about how there were more than two million people marching on Washington today, (that would make it bigger than even the inauguration) but all anyone who wasn't a right-winger saw today was 30,000 to 60,000 right-wingers bused in from around the country.
Here's what the organizers themselves told us to expect. Dick Armey told the right-wing Newsmax that they're generating hundreds of responses in interest to the 9/12 March. The tea party patriots told us that they were expecting as many as one million to turn out and that they had permits for a one million man march on Washington.
After Wednesday night's speech, Bill O was running with McCain's original idea to "fix" health care by opening up all insurance companies to compete in all states. The problem with that is that each state has its own laws governing health care and it would cause incredible conflicts that could not be resolved. BillO is actually stumping for the federal government to destroy states' rights and their laws. Wow.
BillO: Why wouldn't the president say, let's let everybody compete. Let's let all the insurance companies compete nation wide and that will drive the price down...
Axelrod: Well first of all we have a system of state regulation, you know that of the insurance industry that makes that difficult. What we want is these individual market places. Some markets have competition, other markets don't.
BillO: The Feds can override the states...
Axelrod: Excuse me?
BillO: The Feds can override the states, you know that. You can make it so that all health insurance companies compete nationwide.
Axelrod: This is a historic moment with you calling for the feds overriding the states. I didn't realize you had that...
O'Reilly: Federal jurisdiction, you know federal jurisdiction takes precedence in almost every legislative area...
Axelrod was so shocked that he had to ask BillO to repeat himself. O'Reilly is a socialist now.
This is another example of how disingenuous conservatives are. If they want something---everything goes....Now he can't complain about anything the federal government does from now on because what he's saying is far more radical than anything that has been put forth by the Obama administration. Can you imagine the uproar that would take place if the president said he was going to override the states?
John Stossel has been masquerading as a journalist at ABC for years. We've documented some of his hackery and whining over time and as I fully expected, he's finally making the jump to crazytown where he belongs -- Fox News:
John Stossel is leaving ABC News for Fox, where he'll host a weekly show on Fox Business and host a series of specials for Fox News.
TVNewser reports that the libertarian "20/20" host is expected to sign a multi-year-deal with Fox, where he'll host a two-hour weekly show on Fox Business and make appearances on Fox News in both the daytime and primetime hours.
Stossel's departure comes on the heels of last week's announcement that Charlie Gibson is retiring from ABC News. Read on...
At least at Fox Business he won't have to worry about ratings or being seen by very many people, but his "specials" for Fox News should fit right in with their low-brow, low-information standards. ABC will be a better network for letting him go.
I have avoided using the above wrestling, smack-down clip in past Stossel posts, but the comparison between Fox News and wrasslin' was too precious to pass up!
Anthony Weiner with Neil Cavuto on Fox News tells him the White House will lose 100 votes without a public option:
CAVUTO: So you’re saying if the president leaves the public option as just an option, not a drop-dead one, he’s gonna lose, essentially, the House.
WEINER: “Well frankly, right now, as the bill’s constructed, it would be an option for people to choose, no one would be forced into it.
What happens if you leave out the option? Where’s the competition, where’s the downward pressure on prices, and where is the thing that helps taxpayers, where’s the thing that helps small businesses? You need that, and it was part of the construct of the bill, and frankly the president’s been a couple of different places on it, but tonight we get to see what he has to say. And I think what he’s going to say is not only are we going to keep the public option in there, we’re going to make it a vigorous one so that consumers have a choice.
CAVUTO: But he has said, Congressman, while that’s something he would prefer personally, in the ABC interview, he said there are a number of ways you can get there, this is not necessarily “the” way. So what if he does something in the middle here? He’s a pragmatic fellow, he wants to get healthcare reform passed, and he says something to the effect, all right, to get the Anthony Weiners and all behind me, if the private insurance guys don’t do what I want them to do, or extract the savings I expect them to, then we do Weiner’s public option.
WEINER: Well frankly, the way the present public option kicks in is, what, ten years out? 2013 is Year One of the bill, then there’s a five-year grace period. But the fact of the matter is, we’ve tried the private insurance model and they’re providing unaffordable health care and 15,000 Americans lose their health care every single day. I don’t frankly see the argument for dropping the public option. All it is, is a choice. All it is, is competition.
CAVUTO: Well you know, the fear is that it’s not just an option, it’s a Trojan horse. That once in, the government just takes over everything.
WEINER: Yeah, I’ve heard that, and I’ve heard that a lot of places, and none more than here on Fox. Frankly, CBO say 4% of people would wind up getting in and I frankly think that’s not vigorous enough. I think we should cut out the bank shot and say the private insurance companies aren’t contributing enough. But that’s not where the president is.
