1 in 5 of latest ObamaCare waivers went to Nancy Pelosi’s district?

Thanks for admitting that they are the only ones in the MSM doing the job of actually reporting these days.

Del Dolemonte on May 17, 2011 at 11:54 AM

Comedy gold!

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 12:01 PM

Please prove me wrong. On this story, the media except for Fox and some blogs, like Forbes and the 2 San Francisco newspapers, are totally silent.

And what of CNN? For 10 years, they totally refused to report on Saddam Hussein’s atrocities against his own citizens.

And more recently, CNN refused to divulge that one of its “anchors”, Fareed Zakaria, was also advising O’bama. His role was outed by another CNN critter.

Want Comedy Gold? That same CNN, years earlier, had taken Faux News to task for doing the same thing.

The news that CNN’s Fareed Zakaria has had private conversations with Barack Obama unveiled a glaring double standard at that network, as back in November 2002, when it was revealed that Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes sent a memo to then President George W. Bush regarding his post-9/11 actions CNN anchors threw a fit.

As the MRC’s Brent Baker reported in the November 19 CyberAlert, CNN anchors throughout an entire broadcast day expressed outrage at Ailes’ actions, led by Jack Cafferty and Paula Zahn’s mocking of Fox News as a biased network, as seen in this November 18, 2002 exchange:

JACK CAFFERTY: Listen Paula, I have a story that may interest you here, a story that might be good for what ails you. That’s as in “Roger Ailes,” the guy who runs Fox News, that low-budget operation down the street with the red letters.

PAULA ZAHN: Does that shed new light on “we report, you decide” Jack?

CAFFERTY: “Fair and balanced” [laughter] We better leave that alone.

Fast forward to 2011 and the CNN reaction to Zakaria advising Obama has been half-hearted at best. After Zakaria’s colleague Eliot Spitzer, on Thursday’s In The Arena, told him that it “brought a smile to my face” and “makes my heart warm” to learn Obama “calls you for wisdom and advice,” Zakaria attempted a meager backtrack on his website. On the official site for his CNN show, Fareed Zakaria GPS, he insisted that he just “had a couple of conversations with the President, off-the-record. At no point did President Obama ask me for advice on a specific policy.”

The MRC’s Baker reported, on Sunday’s Reliable Sources, Howard Kurtz “only offered a gentle reprimand” of Zakaria:

Kurtz relayed how Zakaria claimed “that the two meetings he’s had with Obama in recent months give him a sense of the President’s thinking, and that he used to have the same kinds of meetings with, for example, Condi Rice.”

Kurtz decided: “I agree with Fareed’s last point, that part of what he’s getting at the White House is high-level spin. That’s why I think the fact of the meetings should have been disclosed. Zakaria says that’s not part of the arrangement, but it should be. Otherwise, people will inevitably have doubts when word leaks out.”

Hardly the tongue-lashing CNN delivered to its much higher rated competitor Fox News in 2002.

Del Dolemonte on May 17, 2011 at 12:16 PM

Please prove me wrong. On this story, the media except for Fox and some blogs, like Forbes and the 2 San Francisco newspapers, are totally silent.

That could be because FNC is the only news outlet brave and intrepid enough to take on this corrupt, fascist administration.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 12:24 PM

Thanks for admitting the truth. And for totally ignoring what I said about CNN.

Comedy Gold, indeed.

Del Dolemonte on May 17, 2011 at 1:01 PM

Haha. There was a waiver thread yesterday, and I asked commenters here to explain why they’re outraged about the waivers. No one was able to do so.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 1:06 PM

1. So far, 26% of the waivers have gone to labor unions. However, labor unions only make up 12% of all workers.

No one in the MSM except for FNC has bothered to report that anomaly.

2. We don’t know what the “standards” for granting the waivers is, because the O’bama people refuse to tell us.

3. And related to #2, we know who has been granted waivers. Shouldn’t we also have a right to know who also applied for those waivers, but were turned down?

Comedy Gold, Banya.

Del Dolemonte on May 17, 2011 at 1:14 PM

2. We don’t know what the “standards” for granting the waivers is, because the O’bama people refuse to tell us.

Wrong.

You’re dismissed.

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 1:21 PM

LOL! Nice try, but no cigar. First of all, you might have misunderstood my question; what I meant was that they won’t tell us what their criteria is for refusing waivers.

But as for that bulletin you cite, it is intentionally nebulous. See the bottom of Page 3, where it
says:

While the waiver applications are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, several factors related to the test established in the IFR may be considered as each application is reviewed.

In other words, no set in stone criteria for determining who gets the waivers. And no explanation or criteria to explain why those who are refused were refused.

And you ignored totally the other part of my question-don’t we have a right to know who was refused those waivers? And why?

Getting back to Faux News, I noted that they were the only major media outlet covering this waiver thing today, while ABC, C-BS, NBC, PBS, NPR, CNN, and MSDNC have all spiked it.

Can you give us examples of the reverse happening? Has Faux News ever spiked a major story that all of the outlets named above covered?

And remember, it was a Fox News Channel affiliate in Portland Maine that broke the Dubyah DUI story 4 days before the 2000 election.

Del Dolemonte on May 17, 2011 at 3:06 PM

Sorry Del, but the judges are calling that a first-round TKO. Better luck next time!

crr6 on May 17, 2011 at 3:31 PM

Translated: “I can’t answer Del’s questions without looking like a hypocritical idiot.”

Del Dolemonte on May 17, 2011 at 3:42 PM

Small business owner Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters wonders:

Just think if current Speaker John Boehner (R-Oh.) had procured these waivers for his district in Ohio. Can you imagine the media uproar?

Del Dolemonte on May 17, 2011 at 4:16 PM

Wow, another “reporter” has now jumped on this story-but of course, to try and spin it.

Sam Stein is a Political Reporter at the Huffington Post, based in Washington, D.C. Previously he has worked for Newsweek magazine, the New York Daily News and the investigative journalism group Center for Public Integrity. He has a masters from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.

Impeccable credentials, eh what?

Del Dolemonte on May 17, 2011 at 5:33 PM

PELOSI’S OFFICE RESPONDS:

From her spokesman, Drew Hammill: “It is pathetic that there are those who would be cheering for Americans to lose their minimum health coverage or see their premiums increase for political purposes. These waivers are reviewed and granted solely by the Administration in an open and transparent process so workers currently enrolled in ‘mini-med’ policies like those in San Francisco and across the country will not be punished and lose the minimum coverage they already have. These waivers will be eliminated in 2014 when Americans will have an opportunity to shop for affordable coverage on the health exchanges and will no longer be at the mercy of insurance companies placing coverage limits on policies.

The complaints coming from this crowd that supports ending Medicare is just another example of putting politics first.”

Del Dolemonte on May 17, 2011 at 6:53 PM