Green Room

Video: Kirsten Powers says Bush 2008 veto of bill with end-of-life provision “not true”

posted at 11:02 am on December 29, 2010 by

Good stuff. When you tell a liberal the truth they recoil in disbelief.  Seriously.

Just watch Kirsten Powers and her disbelief  in this interview when the bomb is dropped about 6:00 in.  She’s so flustered when she finds out the truth that President Bush vetoed the 2008 bill with the end-of-life provision in it and it was the Democrat Congress that overrode the veto and forced it into law.


Here’s the transcript:

SCHLAPP: And government itself, let me tell you, the language here right, the language is different. They made the language worse, instead of doing this once every five years, now the Obama administration is allowing this to happen every year and actually reimbursing doctors to do it every year. So, that’s quite a slight of hand. And doesn’t government — aren’t they a little conflicted here? They have to find this huge health care savings for seniors at the same time they’ve become the counselors to seniors in their end of care decisions?

POWERS: Where was your outrage in 2008 when the Bush administration said that Medicare would reimburse end of life counseling?

SCHLAPP: It was a veto that was overridden by the Democrats. So, I give President Bush credit for vetoing that bill.

POWERS: No, it was a 2008 law. I mean, I don’t know what are talking about.

SCHLAPP: Yes, that became law over the president’s veto.

POWERS: No, that’s not true.

Yes it is true, Kirsten.  And you look foolish and lose more of your credibility for believing the false narrative and then trying to advance it on national TV.

Could you imagine if Sarah Palin made that mistake?

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

How much is the reimbursement for talking the talk with seniors? Probably not as much as they get for cutting out tonsils or amputating legs.

Kissmygrits on December 29, 2010 at 11:23 AM

I was watching this live when it happened… it was hilarious!!!

Indy82 on December 29, 2010 at 11:28 AM

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Joseph Goebbels

rbj on December 29, 2010 at 11:37 AM

Facts don’t matter. Liberal opinions and knowledge is beyond debate because liberals are never wrong, they don’t make mistakes.

Skandia Recluse on December 29, 2010 at 11:49 AM

It appears the libs can not be told the truth and believe it! They hear lies being told daily by bho, his team, and most in dc and still believe the lies as the truth. So sad.

On the issue of bhocare, here is a cartoon by Beeler.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/nate-beelers-toons/2010/12/deep-end
L

letget on December 29, 2010 at 11:54 AM

Here’s the problem. It’s that leftists don’t understand the constitution.

So, because the provision became LAW while BUSH was in office, she has to think it was DOWN TO BUSH because she knows Presidents can veto…

BUT she does not know (or has forgotten) that CONGRESS can override the veto with a two-thirds majority.

Jack Bauer on December 29, 2010 at 11:55 AM

If you want to anger a conservative, tell them a lie.

If you want to anger a liberal, tell them the truth.

powerpro on December 29, 2010 at 12:57 PM

Kirsten is a very lazy liberal commentator. She has the talking points down but often does not know the facts.

mchristian on December 29, 2010 at 1:24 PM

Here’s the problem. It’s that leftists don’t understand the constitution.

So, because the provision became LAW while BUSH was in office, she has to think it was DOWN TO BUSH because she knows Presidents can veto…

BUT she does not know (or has forgotten) that CONGRESS can override the veto with a two-thirds majority.

Jack Bauer on December 29, 2010 at 11:55 AM

This and they always forget don’t know that is congress that writes the bills, not POTUS.

If you want to anger a conservative, tell them a lie.

If you want to anger a liberal, tell them the truth.

powerpro on December 29, 2010 at 12:57 PM

How true!!!

AH_C on December 29, 2010 at 1:50 PM

She is usually a decent apologist from the other side of the aisle. But she got slaughtered here and when she finally checks hers facts she will feel like a tool.

Good try Kristen, but you’re so wrong here, you should have stayed home.

Opposite Day on December 29, 2010 at 2:43 PM

I used to respect Kirsten Powers, but this is not the first time she’s been a lying shill for the far left agenda.

Roy Rogers on December 29, 2010 at 4:17 PM

Kirstin Powers is real pretty, so we’re all suppose to listen to her.

portlandon on December 29, 2010 at 5:55 PM

I used to respect Kirsten Powers, but this is not the first time she’s been a lying shill for the far left agenda.

Roy Rogers on December 29, 2010 at 4:17 PM

Yeah, Roy. But she gets a pass cause she’s hot.

BigAlSouth on December 29, 2010 at 6:33 PM

Gee, SusanAnne, this is the second post that you’ve written about this crud, and in both posts you talk about Bush vetoing some bill that became law in the context of talking about what your headline calls “end-of-life provision

Now, SusanAnne, it just might be a bit more honest if you mention that Bush’s opposition to the bill that he veotoed wasn’t at all about those end-of-life provisions that you’re discussing.

Here’s a link to Bush saying that he supported the objectives of the bill but said that it would reduce some choices of primary physician selection and reduce the Medicare prescription drug program.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0708/Bush_vetoes_Medicare_bill.html

You might also enhance your honesty quotient by amending that part of the earlier post where you tried dishonestly saying that

the Democrats, along with some “good-willed” Republicans OVERRODE Bush’s veto

It wasn’t the Democrats and a few Repub’s SusanAnne, the bill passed both houses without even a roll call vote, it was so popular and unobjectionable. 355 Ayes, 59 Nays in the House and a Unanimous vote for it in the Senate.

The override vote was 383 Ayes, 41 Nays in the House and 70-26.

Remember, SusanAnne…. telling the truth is good for the soul.

audiculous on December 29, 2010 at 9:34 PM

Wow! Audi, it must have taken you all day to do that research. The post is so simple, even my 2nd grader got it. Kirsten Powers did not know the fact that President Bush vetoed the bill she cited as cover for the WH narrative. That was the point–she should have checked that out first before she carried the water for the WH. As always, thanks for commenting!

SusanAnne Hiller on December 29, 2010 at 10:28 PM

It took a big twenty minutes SusanAnne. If you were a responsible and honest blogger, it would probably would have taken you less time than that.

All be happy to in turn thank you when you begin to include less fudging of the facts.
As I said, this was your SECOND post trying to say that Bush vetoed a bill because of “end-of-life provision”

That’s just a crock, SusanAnne… and TWO posts with the same dishonest load doesn’t get excused by saying that the headline in both posts wasn’t the point.
That’s also damned dishonest … or easily remedied by changing the headlines or printing a clarification…..

Take the opportunity to please and surprise by making the change and earn my thanks.

Go on, honesty isn’t painful after you get used to it.

audiculous on December 29, 2010 at 10:40 PM

I used to like Kirsten Powers a lot. She was a liberal (but not a fanatic) but was well spoken, and had a lot of common sense. Lately she ahs become a down-the-line Obot.

Hilts on December 29, 2010 at 10:41 PM

Audi–the words cannot be clearer in the post:

President Bush vetoed the 2008 bill with the end-of-life provision in it

I said with NOT because. Please make that note and I would urge you to read with a little less bias.
I hope that helps you grasp this post and the fact that Kirsten Powers–a highly paid political analyst/pundit–did not know the correct information and pushed the WH false narrative. G’night!

SusanAnne Hiller on December 29, 2010 at 10:52 PM

No SusanAnne. You don’t get to run the headline featuring “end-of-life provision” TWICE and try to say that you didn’t mean to imply a causal link.

Keep piling weak dishonesty on top of weak dishonesty and trying to say that someone correcting your dishonest, and really hack journo formulation, is biased is just whiny weak bullshirt,

Now you go and have a good night, SusanAnne, and you try real hard to write more honestly next time.

You owe it to yourself to keep trying to do better!!
I’ll help you, but you have to do your best, SusanAnne.

audiculous on December 29, 2010 at 11:01 PM

What mental illness does this antagonist suffer from?

Inanemergencydial on December 30, 2010 at 2:22 AM

Audi, while I agree with you that Bush vetoed the 2008 bill for many reasons, not just the end-of-life section or expressly because of it, the point SusanAnne was trying to make is that Kirsten Powers was factually incorrect when stating that the bill was passed with the support of the Bush Administration. The various reasons stated for the veto do not make Powers correct in her statement.

BigAlSouth on December 30, 2010 at 7:55 AM

audiculous on December 29, 2010 at 11:01 PM

Bottom line, he vetoed the bill. The point of the post was she didn’t know and was just regurgitating WH talking points. If you want to talk about why, fine. But remember, he vetoed the bill with the provisions in it. So evidently, one was more important than the other. Choke on that condescension.

gitarfan on December 30, 2010 at 8:20 AM

Looks like Kirsten is mistaken. Do we want her tarred and feathered? Do we take her scalp? Or do we request a retraction and move along. At least conservatives can have some kind of dialogue with Kirsten, and respectfully disagree without being called an extreme hate-filled racist tea bagger.

Mark30339 on December 30, 2010 at 11:20 AM

BigAlSouth and gitarfan,

the real point is that Pres Bush and the Bush admin and the Congress, BOTH parties, agreed to re-imburse for the counseling. They all agreed on it, and it was nothing new that hospitals provide it. It was routinely done before then.

When people such as SusanAnne try to make the case that, or imply that, Bush or the Republicans opposed it, she’s just bending the truth. Whether Powers knew that the bill was vetoed or didn’t know it doesn’t make much difference because the crud SusanAnne and others are pushing isn’t the truth.

SusanAnne is the one recoiling from the truth here. The counseling wasn’t the issue and if it was an issue how would she account for the 383-41 vote to override?

audiculous on December 30, 2010 at 12:57 PM

“The counseling wasn’t the issue and if it was an issue how would she account for the 383-41 vote to override?”

audiculous on December 30, 2010 at 12:57 PM

You have some serious reading comprehension problems. What part of Bush vetoed the bill don’t you understand? What you’re doing is called moving the goal posts and you don’t do it very well.

gitarfan on December 30, 2010 at 4:36 PM

No, I don’t believe that I do have any trouble comprehending what I’m reading.

What part of Bush vetoed the bill don’t you understand?

I don’t understand the part that SusanAnne is relying on to make her point, The part where Bush vetoed the bill because he opposed the stuff that SusanAnne highlights in her headline. end-of-life provision

The part where the vetoes means that Bush, his admin, or the Republican were opposed to counseling or were not proponents.

If the “goalposts” were anything other that this stuff was all the idea of the Democratic Party, who would care whether someone on TV remembered a veto? If all it is about is a veto that meant nothing about end-of-life provision, why is that phrase in the headline?

And why is this the second post SusanAnne is writing about end-of-blahblahblah?

Why don’t you read SusanAnne’s earlier post?
Maybe you’ll comprehend a bit better.

audiculous on December 30, 2010 at 5:09 PM

audiculous is a past master at creating an alternative version of people it doesn’t like and then flogging the strawman to death.

It’s a false accuser, don’t pay any more attention to it, maybe it will get lonely and troll somewhere else.

Merovign on December 30, 2010 at 8:39 PM

read the two posts, read the link I left with Bush’s statement explaining his veto, read the voting history about the 2008 bill.

then either respond or keep flogging your own self, Merovign.
argue the facts, shove the name calling

audiculous on December 30, 2010 at 9:42 PM

“read the two posts, read the link I left with Bush’s statement explaining his veto, read the voting history about the 2008 bill.”

From the Bush statement:

“I support the primary objective of this legislation, to forestall reductions in physician payments”

His support for end of life is where?

gitarfan on December 30, 2010 at 11:54 PM

gitarfan, his statement explaining his veto runs to about 16 paragraphs and offers arguments and explanations for his several objections to the bill.

Nowhere is any hint that he is objecting to the counseling sessions.
If you read the statement, you have to assume that if he had a problem with them, he would have mentioned it.

audiculous on December 31, 2010 at 12:04 AM

then either respond or keep flogging your own self, Merovign.
argue the facts, shove the name calling

audiculous on December 30, 2010 at 9:42 PM

I did look, I did read them, Susananne did not make the claim you accuse her of either time, and has specifically responded to your accusations both times.

Your argument depends on tendentious interpretations that have been specifically refuted, and you don’t care, you just carry on with your original misinterpretation for whatever deranged reason.

You also started the name-calling and then turned and screamed foul because someone did it back, which is, of course, the kind of despicable, cowardly behavior I’d expect of you.

I hope you don’t treat people like this off-line, or you must be very lonely.

Merovign on December 31, 2010 at 4:45 AM

Despite the direct tone, BTW, that was an observation, not a conversation. Just FYI.

Merovign on December 31, 2010 at 4:52 AM

“If you read the statement, you have to assume that if he had a problem with them, he would have mentioned it.”

No, I don’t. That’s the neat thing about assumptions. I could assume that the payment reductions would score more political points and that’s why he used that. I could assume he didn’t like the counseling but not as much as the payment reduction. I could assume a lot more.

I will say I was wrong to let this go:

“the real point is that Pres Bush and the Bush admin and the Congress, BOTH parties, agreed to reimburse for the counseling. They all agreed on it, and it was nothing new that hospitals provide it. It was routinely done before then.”

The REAL point is Powers was wrong and Bush did veto the bill. Since he did veto the bill, the payment reduction was more important to him than the counseling.

gitarfan on December 31, 2010 at 11:42 AM

This post has been promoted to HotAir.com.

Comments have been closed on this post but the discussion continues here.

Ed Morrissey on January 1, 2011 at 4:53 PM