Tag Archives: George Stephanopoulos

Even Former Clinton Operative Stephanopoulos Doesn’t Buy Jack Lew’s Spin

Jack Lew

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision that upheld the Affordable Care Act as constitutional under the taxing powers of Congress, the Obama administration can’t seem to call it a tax.  Instead, they’re trying to peddle the “tax” as a penalty. White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew did his run through the Sunday morning talk shows with this entertaining spin. Even former Clinton operative George Stephanopoulos was unconvinced: “As you know, President Obama denied all along that this was a tax. Is he now prepared to defend it?”

Mr. Lew stuck to the “not a tax” spin:  “I think we have to take a step back. What is in the law is a penalty. It starts by saying all Americans have a right to health insurance. For Americans who buy health insurance or who can’t afford it and get it through a government program, there is no penalty.”

However, Stephanopolous pressed on with “you keep wanting to use the word penalty…they [The Supreme Court] found it constitutional because it is a tax, not a penalty. Here is the Chief Justice. Right here, he said, “The shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax, not a penalty.”  Lew denied it again and indirectly called the American people stupid, stating:

LEW: The Supreme Court looked at what the structure of the law was, and they saw that 1 percent of the people would be paying this charge if they chose not to avail themselves of health insurance. But more middle-class people are going to get a tax cut in this law. There’s a tax cut of $4,000 for people who need help paying for health insurance.

For the very, very few who choose to go uninsured, and who can afford it, and who are saying that if I need health care, it’s going to be someone else’s burden, it says they have to pay a charge.

You know, if you look at the past, since President Obama’s been in office, middle-class families have gotten a $3,600 tax cut. In this law, there’s a $4,000 tax cut for people who need help paying for health insurance. For that 1 percent who have chosen not to buy health insurance and just to pass the burden onto others, there’s this penalty.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you do concede — and you keep wanting to use the word penalty — you do concede that the law survived only because Justice Roberts found this to be a tax?

LEW: You know, I think, if you look at the decision, which is a very complicated one, you know, there are arguments that support different theories. There was…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But the argument of Chief Justice Roberts is that it’s a tax.

LEW: He — he went through the different powers that Congress has and he found that there is a power, whatever you call it, to assess a penalty like this.

STEPHANOPOULOS: He called it a tax. So you’re conceding that?

LEW: I’m saying that it was set up as a penalty for people who choose not to buy insurance, even though they can afford it, and for that 1 percent, we call it fair.

Lew’s assertion of the opinion being complicated, even though the part we’re discussing is explicitly clear in the written opinion, highlights the progressive left’s inherent condescension.  I guess the vast majority of Americans, who aren’t members of educational elite with learned diction, can’t possibly understand the difference between a tax and a penalty.  How progressive of them?  Mr. Lew’s shameless spinning and distortion of the facts even has liberals in the media saying he’s wrong.

Ask for Abortion but settle on contraception in hopes of..

The focus is clearly on whether or not Obamacare is pushing contraception for all or whether or not Republicans want to restrict women’s access to contraception. This is not the latest volley against the pro-life crowd, nor is it the end goal.

First, we look for the beginning of the Obama administration’s new strategy. It is not when the Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced that Obamacare would force Catholic organizations to violate their fundamental beliefs and provide, if not at least pay for, contraceptive services. Nope, that wasn’t the beginning.

The start, at least during the current Presidential administration, was in a Presidential debate. George Stephanopoulos, prior Clinton White House adviser, tried to push Mitt Romney on whether or not states could ban contraception.

During and shortly after the debate, many were left scratching their heads at the odd line of questioning – “why would George ask such a ridiculous question?”. Now, we know. This was to plant the idea that it could happen, that it might happen and that it would be the Republican candidates that would do everything in their power to prevent every woman from having absolute reproductive freedom (a terrible, semantically-overloaded term).

Why are the Democrats backing off of Abortion and making contraception an election year issue? Republicans have no problem with women buying the pill, diaphragms, rubbers, nuvarings, implants.. whatever. There is no anti-contraception lobby, anti-pill party or down-with-diaphragms PAC. It’s because they’re admitting defeat on publicly-funded abortion and need to try an end-around.

Remember Planned Parenthood? Remember the fights around Obamacare funding for abortion? Those are the battles they lost. Now, they’re playing to win – the presidency and a toe-hold on future pro-abortion regulations.

They can’t get abortion funded by taxpayers – they’ve been trying. So now the fight is to get contraception paid for by taxpayers to pave the way for “free” abortions for all.

Some are yelling contraceptive freedom, equal healthcare rights for women and numerous other irrelevancies. The Constitution does NOT provide for rubbers, the pill, spermacide or anything of the sort. In fact, it doesn’t provide for health care at all.

The progressive liberals are doing what they always do – advance the argument past the base point and get everyone to argue over the small points. The real issue is that while life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are protected by the framing document – me paying for anyone else’s pursuits is not .. at all.

Another way of putting is it how it was put in a short conversation in the movie “The Rum Diaries”. A character says, “suppose you want to raise taxes by 5%. You might propose raising taxes by 10%. The people will run about and yell about it. You’ll say let’s compromise, say 7% and perhaps land at 5 – exactly where you intended.” That is what this whole contraception mess is about – asking for more and settling for less as a road to having it all.

That’s the crux of it all. While a bastardization of the general welfare clause may somehow protect a women’s ability to abort unborn babies, it does not force me to pay for it. While being equal in the eyes of the law may mean that contraception should be available, it does not force me to pay for someone else’s desire to have sex without consequences. Having a right simply means that the government may not prevent your from pursuing that freedom. The government is not required to gift wrap it and deliver it to your front door.

A right is simply something that may not be taken away or infringed. It is not the same as an entitlement, where someone should expect that it will be provided. The second amendment secures my right to own a gun, it does not require taxpayers to buy me one – nor would I ever expect that they would. Understand the difference – it will be paramount to surviving the onslaught on our rights and sensibilities that the left has planned for the coming months. This is only the beginning.

-un-change, re-hope, success in 2012

Rich Mitchell’s opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of Conservative Daily News, Anomalous Media, its staff or.. anyone else

ABC New Hampshire GOP Debate: Worst. Debate. Ever.

Saturday night’s Republican debate has to go down as one of the worst debates of the year, and maybe even in history.  It was hosted on ABC and moderated by Diane Sawyer, George Stephanopolous and some other dude who disappeared half way through; there was some question as to whether or not Diane Sawyer was actually sober.  Her speech was slightly slurred at times, her eyes not always focused, and in some points it seemed she wasn’t really even paying attention.  Perhaps there was something spoiled in their “pre-game” meal because her colleague, Josh somebody (McElveen, actually) asked one question of the candidates before he disappeared. He wasn’t heard from again for the rest of the broadcast, which mysteriously ended a full 20 minutes early.  It was unclear if that was planned or not, but the end came so abruptly it was jarring. The audio from the mics made each candidate sound like they were broadcasting from outer space and I’m not sure, but I think Sawyer may have forgotten to comb her hair before she hit the stage.  It was all extremely odd.

Apparently George has some insider information that Republicans will be selecting their primary candidate based on gay marriage and contraceptives.  That’s right: birth control.  Georgie grilled Mitt Romney over the issue of states banning contraceptives for minutes!  It was so bizarre even Romney was taken aback by the question…all four times it was asked.  By the last time even the largely subdued audience was booing Steph, and one heckler managed to raise his voice above the boos to chide Steph. I couldn’t make out what he was saying, but if it was anything close to what I was yelling at the television it went something like this: “Contraceptives George? Really? Unemployment is sky high and national debt is at $15 trillion and rising and you’re asking about birth control? Shut up!”…I’ll stop there because it got a little blue after that. My apologies to my Twitter followers.

Gay marriage and birth control may be issues the larger population will want more answers on in the generals, but these are primary elections and it’s the economy, stupid!

The candidates were largely a let down as well – although I can’t tell if it was really them or if the moderator’s questions were so inane that the candidates could do little with them. Santorum was obviously the one to watch Saturday night coming out of Iowa. The first question was directed at him and he got off to a choppy start.  He seemed a bit nervous.  Santorum isn’t used to leading and it showed.  His performance got stronger as the night went on, but it wasn’t as strong as he needed it to be.

This was perhaps Rick Perry’s best debate so far.  Unfortunately he wasn’t given the opportunity to answer a question until 20 minutes into the debate, and he was rarely heard from the whole evening. Could that be why he sounded so much better?  In actuality, Perry had some very solid and stirring points on defense, foreign affairs and energy. If his heart is still in this thing, this could be the point where we see Perry start to gain some momentum. Clearly debates are not his strong suit, but Presidents are not elected on debates alone. Two words – George Bush.

The rest of the field seemed satisfactory, if not boring. Romney was strong but vague as usual and Newt made an applause-worthy point during Stephie’s sexy-time grilling about gay marriage and contraceptives. He pointed out the hypocrisy of forcing Catholic adoption services to close and leave orphans without this vital service because of their beliefs and anti-Christian bigotry. It was a great point that only Newt could have made with such sharpness and confidence.

Ron Paul actually played the race card and it was very strange. This may be the first time I’ve ever noticed Ron Paul responding to his media coverage. He’s been having a few issues with old racist newsletters he published (but did not personally write) many years ago and it was obvious he was sensitive to that.  I think Paul’s surge is over, despite ABC’s best effort by giving him more screen time than any other candidate. Will he go third party?

Jon Huntsman was there. Skipping Iowa, he seems to have put all his eggs in the New Hampshire basket; but if he was hoping this debate would give him the chance to surge I suspect he and his supporters will be disappointed. Huntsman seems like a nice man and he’d probably be a whole lot better of a President than Obama, but he’s not a serious candidate at this point.

Besides a couple of chuckles and one or two applause lines no one stood out Saturday night. No one stepped out to claim his right to the Presidency with boldness. The losers of this debate were clearly ABC, Stephanopolous and Diane Sawyer.  I was on Twitter and Facebook through the entire debate and the general consensus seemed to be that Diane was drunk and George was stupid. Why do Republicans let former Clinton operatives and liberal journalists who hate us all run these things? Its ridiculous. Saturday night must surely go down as the Worst Debate Ever. My professional conclusion? ABC sucks. Worst debate ever. Oh, did I say that already? Sorry.

Worst Debate Ever.


crossposted at kiradavis.net

Diane Sawyer Impressed by Iowa Hicks and Their Book-learnin' : Debate Recap

ABC held yet another Republican debate at Drake University in Iowa Saturday.  Diane Sawyer moderated along with George Steph….. oh you know who he is, don’t make me spell the whole thing.  The GOP field is becoming smaller and it seems to make for a much more interesting debate process.  There was arguing, bickering and even a few jokes.  All the candidates seemed to appreciate the extra time less contenders in the field produced and they all took full advantage.

Cranky Uncle Newt showed up straight from the family Thanksgiving gathering where he spent the whole weekend cranking at cousin Jimmy for being a lazy, slacker, mama’s boy and fussing at Aunt Linda for being 40 years old and still single.  Newt has that air – he’s one of the most intelligent political candidates in modern history but he always sounds like he’s in a bad mood.  Personally I find it charming; some of my favorite relatives are cranky old people.  I don’t know how it washes with the rest of the electorate, however.  Also, there was the issue of Newt’s hair.  His typically well-groomed, silky white mane was looking extra helmet-y on Saturday.  It was strange and distracting for this blogger who is weirdly obsessed with presidential/political manes.  Is Newt auditioning for Galaxy Quest 2?

Newt’s hair aside, the Speaker’s Saurday debate performance was that of a man who know he is surging in the polls and understands the importance of winning in Iowa.  No doubt, Newt would kill Obama (metaphorically, liberals. Don’t get your chemical-free, dye-free panties in a bunch) in a debate, but do Americans want a Debater-in-Chief or something more? Time will tell.

I get tired of saying this about Romney, but he was quite polished, as usual.  Mitt Romney worked very hard to reassure voters that he is not the establishment candidate many conservatives are worried about.  He has a private sector record, didn’t you know?  Oh, yes…Romney worked in the private sector for 25 years.  Also, Romney was a private sector businessman for 25 years.  And don’t forget, for 25 years Mitt Romney worked in the private sector, that’s run privately, and not by government.  As always, Romney was clear and succinct and even got a few good-natured barbs in there.  He continues to lay out a platform for the general elections, should he receive the nomination.

Rick Perry seems much more relaxed in a debate setting where he is afforded more time to answer questions.  Perry is as solid on his positions as the day he announced, but the real question is this: Will Americans be more interested in his actual policy and political platform than his debate performances?

Ron Paul was there and so were many, many, many of his supporters – as usual.  Ron Paul wants to end the Fed.  He wants to end the Fed and American involvement in foreign issues of any kind, forever.  Of all the candidates I think Paul is the most consistent. He never backtracks and never changes his tune.  I may tire of hearing him talk about the Fed, but at least I know Ron Paul hates the Fed.  No one can lie or say otherwise.

Rick Santorum had a good night, but he continues to see less screen time than his opponents and have fewer questions directed toward him.  At this point Santorum is known as the ‘social conservative’ candidate and he seems comfortable with that.  Santorum had many good moments on Saturday night. One came when Diane Sawyer was becoming perturbed that none of the candidates would give a firm number on the amount of jobs they would create in their first term as President.  Santorum basically said its not the President’s job to make promises like that because the President can’t create jobs; private sector citizens create jobs and all the government can do is get out of their way.  I like that answer.  Government doesn’t create anything, Diane! Except red tape; they are good at that.

Michele Bachmann gave a very good performance Saturday as well.  Iowa is her home state and she certainly looks at home when she is campaigning there.  As a former tax lawyer and IRS employee, Bachmann has a very unique position.  She’s been on the inside of our tax code and she knows how devastating it is for working families.  She knows the dangers of Obamacare and Obama’s tax policies in general.  Bachmann is extremely intelligent.  Those Americans that live on the coasts may feel she is dumb because her A’s are flat and she talks like she’s from Iowa. I think those people should stop being such snobs.  Quit listening to her (very American) accent and listen to the content of her words.  Bachmann may have a very slim chance of winning this primary, but she seems more than qualified to be in this race.  Her experience as a midwestern girl on the inside of Washington makes her one of the more genuine candidates, in my opinion.  The Iowa primary will be very telling for Bachmann.  If she does not do well there, its likely her campaign ends.  Bachmann did manage to salute her tea party compatriot, Herman Cain.  As she said, its just not a debate anymore unless someone mentions 9-9-9.  I agree! I missed the Herminator.  I did not miss Jon Huntsman.

Sawyer and George (sorry, I just can’t type that whole name) did a satisfactory job moderating, although Sawyer was very condescending when she opened with a comment to Iowa voters telling them how IMPRESSED she was at how seriously they take their primary process.  Imagine that, Diane! A bunch of mid-west country hicks who don’t shop designer stores or have issues with trans-fats actually like to take part in the political process.  How cute!  Yes, Diane – Iowans vote.  They love to vote. They love America and they care about what happens here.  Shocking news to an East coast elitist, mainstream media diva, I know.

Stephanopoulos The Mobster’s Veiled Threat To Michele Bachmann

I want to know where George Stephanopoulos was during the 2008 Presidential election cycle! If he would have been throwing his proverbial “reporter” weight around back then like he is now we would not have Barack Obama as our President! Maybe we would know the real connection between Obama and Tony Rezko, without the feigned innocence act. The same goes for Bill Ayers. Oh, yes, I know we know the truth! However, it sure would have been nice to have someone in the Main Stream Media actually acknowledge the facts back in the last election.

Oh! Wait! I forgot! Georgie is one of the “DC Insiders”, and a Democrat to boot. I should know that someone who worked in the Clinton White House would never try to find the truth about a fellow Democrat!

No worries, though, America! Help is on the way! George is going to make sure that he uses his “journalistic”… job? (talent just does not seem appropriate here) to find out the truth for all of us! He knows we do not want to end up in the same mess we are in now with our next president, so he is going to make sure he investigates everyone and everything to get to the truth, no matter what! He is going to search high and low, go to any back alley he has to, and talk to anybody and everybody just to protect us! And that includes foster children!

In an interview with 2012 Presidential Candidate Michele Bachmann, George Stephanopoulos did very little to veil the menacing threat:

Stephanopoulos: Finally one—one final question. I think one of the most impressive things that people find in your background is the fact that you and your husband have helped raise 23 foster children and I know you want to shield them but are they prepared and are you prepared for the loss of privacy that comes with the president campaign? And is that something you are concerned about for them?

As a mother of 5 children, all of who were adopted through the foster care system, I am literally sick to my stomach with this man! Has he no decency at all?

I will use my family as an example of what he- and the American people- very well may find out when they start invading the privacy of these people who had so much turmoil in their young lives by just being in the foster care system. It is a very broken system!

It would not surprise me to find out most, if not all of these young people have grown up to be quite successful, and hopefully have been able to move past the events of their time in foster care. There may be some that have not. However, this is not the business of the American people!

So, back to my family. Though I am not running for President of the United States, I will give you a small snippet of information about my children. Please keep in mind that my children have NO CONTROL over the biological parents they were born to, just as none of us do.

If I were running for President, and my children were investigated, they would find that:

One of my children is a cocaine addict. (Once an addict, always an addict, right? He was BORN addicted to cocaine!

– One of my children was involved in a drive-by-shooting. (Her mother took her on a drive-by-shooting at the age of 3!)

– One of my children has been called “Satan’s spawn” by previous foster parents! She was 4-years-old when she came to us, so this tells you how old she was when this was written about her! Yes, those exact words are actually in writing! It is very interesting that she is one of the best behaved children I have! ALL she needed and wanted was love, attention and LOVING discipline!

– Two of my children used to scavenge the trash can for food. They were 1-year-old and 2-years-old at the time.

This is just a drop in the bucket to the other issues our children have faced. This does not include the other 5 children that came into our home through the foster care system and were sent back to their biological family.

There is no telling what the media is going to “find” on this little scavenger hunt of theirs in an attempt to discredit Mrs. Bachmann in her run for President. The very fact that they were in the foster care system says that they went through things that were not rosy. I hope these foster care children that were so very blessed to be given a home by Mrs. Bachmann and her husband will file lawsuits against each and every media outlet and personality PERSONALLY for invading their privacy! As foster parents we are informed that the privacy of these children are of utmost importance! So for the media to get a “free pass” to invade their past is absolutely unacceptable!

There is one thing that I ABSOLUTELY agree with Barack Obama on! During the 2008 election campaign he said that his children were off-limits. I ABSOLUTELY agree with this! But, if this is going to be the case for one candidate it should be the case for ALL candidates! However, we know the liberals don’t play fair that way. All we have to do is look at the Palin family to see the liberal media hypocrisy and the children of candidates!