Attacks on Barack Obama

Tags ››› Attacks on Barack Obama
  • Right-Wing Media Lambaste Obama For Not Visiting Flooded Louisiana, Despite Governor’s Request That He Not Come

    ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    Right-wing media are criticizing President Obama for not visiting Louisiana following widespread flooding, saying “the feeling is, does [Obama] really even … care” and attacking him for not ending his “golfing vacation,” ignoring the fact that Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards has publicly requested that Obama not visit due to fear it would drain state resources.

  • Hannity Praises Trump For Using A Teleprompter After Years Of Demonizing Obama For Using Them

    Sean Hannity: “I Would Argue He Found The Secret Sauce, And He’s Still Trump Being Trump”

    Blog ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    Sean Hannity hosted Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway to praise Donald Trump’s use of a teleprompter during a rally in Charlotte, North Carolina, despite Hannity’s past obsession with criticizing President Barack Obama’s use of a teleprompter.

    Hannity has spent years obsessively attacking President Obama’s use of a teleprompter to give speeches. He has claimed that Obama “has a teleprompter on each side of the bed when he goes to sleep every night, if he doesn’t actually put it in the bed” adding “most Americans have figured out that you take away that teleprompter, he’s in trouble.”

    Speaking to Conway, Hannity declared, “I like [Trump] on prompter myself, my own personal preference,” adding Trump’s usage of a teleprompter indicated “he found the secret sauce, and he’s still Trump being Trump”:

    SEAN HANNITY (HOST): Let me ask you this. He gave two speeches, this is what I -- this is what I think is the secret sauce.

    KELLYANNE CONWAY: Yes.

    HANNITY: He only talked about Hillary and Obama, he was on prompter. I like him on prompter myself, my own personal preference. But he stayed on a very powerful Donald Trump message. It was totally him, and he made very powerful points, but he outlined the failures and offered solutions.

  • Giuliani Peddles Repeated Right-Wing Media Lie That There Were No Post-9/11 Terror Attacks Under Bush

    ››› ››› NINA MAST

    Former New York City mayor and Trump supporter Rudy Giuliani falsely claimed that in the “eight years before Obama came along, we didn’t have any successful radical Islamic terrorist attack in the United States,” pushing a false right-wing media narrative that there were no terror attacks during the Bush administration.

  • CNN Lets Trump Spokesperson Falsely Blame Obama For 2004 Death Of Captain Humayun Khan

    UPDATE: Blitzer Later Corrected Pierson's Claim

    Blog ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

    CNN’s Wolf Blitzer allowed Trump spokesperson Katrina Pierson to falsely blame President Obama for “chang[ing] the rules of engagements” before the death of Capt. Humayun Khan on June 8, 2004, during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

    After allowing Pierson to falsely claim that “it was under Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton that changed the rules of engagements that probably cost [Humayun Khan] his life,” Blitzer failed to inform viewers that Barack Obama wasn’t President in 2004 and was first sworn in as a U.S. Senator on January 4, 2005. From the August 2 edition of CNN’s The Situation Room:

    WOLF BLITZER (HOST): Wasn't he disrespectful, though, to that Gold Star family?

    KATRINA PIERSON: Disrespectful by defending himself? He didn't say anything about the son. In fact, he honored his service. The only thing he said, Wolf, is basically "This man knows nothing about me, why is he criticizing me?" How is that an attack?

    BLITZER: Well, most people would have just said "You know what? This family has lost a son, a hero, fought on the battle, prevented some of his fellow soldiers from dying by going into that suicide- that car bombing, if you will. I am not going to get into a discussion, a back and forth. I praise this family. I praise the son," and move on. He didn't have to go back and forth and respond to all of the statements made by the father.

    PIERSON: But surely you can understand -- but surely you can understand the confusion, considering how Donald Trump never voted for the Iraq war. Hillary Clinton did. And then she didn't support the troops to have what they need.

    It was under Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton that changed the rules of engagements, that probably cost his life. So, I don't understand why it is so hard to understand why Donald Trump was confused about why he was being held responsible for something he had nothing to do with, while Hillary Clinton had everything to do with.

    BLITZER: Katrina Pierson, as usual, thank you so much for joining us.

    UPDATE:  Blitzer fact-checked Pierson's bizarre claim in a follow-up segment, noting that Capt. Khan died in Iraq "five years before President Obama took office."

  • Politico Finds Problem With Trump’s “Make America Work” Convention Theme: “It's Already Working”

    Blog ››› ››› ALEX MORASH

    Politico Magazine reported that while the Republican National Convention is pushing the narrative that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump will “make America work again,” the U.S. economy has actually done well since 2009, with millions of jobs created and a reduction by half of the unemployment rate.

    Make America Work Again” was the theme on July 19, the second night of the Republican National Convention, but Politico pointed out that “one of Trump’s many challenges will be convincing non-Republicans that America isn’t working even though nearly 15 million more Americans are.” Politico interviewed Republican convention delegates about their thoughts on the economy and found “they all seem to agree the Obama economy is a ghastly mess. Except for the economy wherever they happen to live.”

    The publication noted that, rather than giving credit to President Obama, convention delegates and Trump credited Republican mayors and governors for local “economic progress.” That includes Trump’s running mate, Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana, whom the nominee praised for job gains in that state even though “Indiana’s unemployment almost perfectly mirrors the national trend.” From Politico Magazine (emphasis added):

    Just as most Americans say they hate Congress but routinely vote for their local congressmen, most Republicans seem to detect a national economic malaise while — with some exceptions in places like coal country and the oil patch — touting the economic progress in their local communities. They square that circle in a variety of ways — crediting their Republican mayors and governors, accusing Obama of manipulating data, or citing legitimate weaknesses in the recovery from the Great Recession. But with unemployment down from 10 percent to less than 5 percent since late 2009, one of Trump’s many challenges will be convincing non-Republicans that America isn’t working even though nearly 15 million more Americans are.

    Trump illustrated this problem last week when he introduced his running mate, Indiana Governor Mike Pence. He said the “primary reason” for his choice was that Indiana’s unemployment had dropped by 3.4 percentage points in four years under Pence, and that its labor force had grown, which he said was “very unusual” for a U.S. state.

    “It’s always bad, down, down, down,” Trump said. “Down 40 percent, 50 percent, 60 percent in some cases.” In fact, the drop in Indiana’s unemployment almost perfectly mirrors the national trend. And the labor force has grown in all but nine states with the worst drop only 3 percentage points in oil-dependent North Dakota. In February 2009, Obama highlighted the free-falling economy he inherited by visiting Elkhart, Indiana, where unemployment was nearly 20 percent; he recently returned to Elkhart to highlight America’s recovery, and unemployment was 4 percent.

    Talking points bashing President Obama and the American economy have been central to the Republican convention. On the first night, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) claimed America is “an economic disaster” because middle-class incomes are down since 1999. Yet Sessions was rebuffed by CNN’s Christine Romans, who noted that middle-class income “began declining actually under George W. Bush” and “more recently, it has started to climb again.” Sessions’ misleading talking point seemed to be taken directly from Fox News, which regularly blames Obama for income stagnation witnessed during the Bush administration and promoted the exact same fallacy just last month.

    The Republican National Convention has come under intense scrutiny from the media for its antics and lack of coherence or coordination. The second night of the convention -- with the theme “Make America Work Again” -- drew ridicule from journalists for not actually talking about the economy, and media denounced the night’s “mock trial” against Hillary Clinton, which featured delegates shouting “lock her up,” as a “mob” and a “festival of hating Hillary.” The first night of the convention saw even more intense pushback, with media calling the evening “disastrous” for its lack of message and saying the plagiarized speech by Trump’s wife, Melania, turned the “night into a catastrophe.” 

  • WSJ Misleads On Obamacare To Blast The "Radicalism" Of A Public Option

    Journal Hypes Co-Op Failures To Show Public Option Cannot Work, Failing To Mention Co-Op Funding Was Slashed

    Blog ››› ››› ALEX MORASH

    The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board assailed President Barack Obama's call for a “Medicare-like” public health insurance option as "radicalism" that would "wipe out anything resembling private insurance," when in reality a public option would likely increase competition, lower costs, and expand access to health care for American consumers.

    In an article published by The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) on July 11, President Obama wrote about the accomplishments of his signature legislation, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), or “Obamacare,” since it became law in 2010. The article, the first scholarly work ever authored by a sitting president, noted that the uninsured rate has dropped 43 percent (from 16.0 percent in 2010 to 9.1 percent in 2015), that the law has contributed to greater financial security for Americans and that it has actually led to better public health. But the president also noted that there is still work to be done on health care reform, including the need for a “Medicare-like public plan” that could compete with private insurance. On July 9, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton publicly reaffirmed her support for the “public option,” a policy she has championed since 1993.

    With the Democratic Party coalescing around the public option as the next step for health care reform, the Journal’s editorial board claimed the introduction of a publicly run insurer into the individual health insurance exchanges would lead to a “market exodus” by private insurers and eventually to a “government-run single payer” universal health care system. Hypocritically, the Journal claimed both that the public option would inevitably destroy private insurance and that the failure of several nonprofit health care co-operatives set up by the existing law stood as proof that government-run insurance systems could not work. From the July 12 editorial (emphasis added):

    Mr. Obama is re-endorsing what he had hoped in 2010 would be a way station for government-run single payer that would gradually wipe out anything resembling private insurance. Insurers can’t outbid a “free” program that is open to all or most and has the unlimited access to the Treasury that Medicare enjoys. A market exodus would be inevitable.

    Democrats claim this would merely be another choice, but they tried a trial-run public option with ObamaCare’s co-ops, which were given up-front federal cash infusions and then were supposed to operate like normal companies. Of the original 24 co-ops, only nine are alive—and most of the survivors are ailing.

    [...]

    Even after jettisoning the public option, ObamaCare passed the Senate with a bare 60-vote majority and the House 219-212, though Democrats commanded their largest majorities since the Great Society. Republicans couldn’t stop anything, but they did oppose the public option for the same reasons as the business community and moderate Democrats: Over time, its radicalism would annex all of U.S. health-care finance.

    The Journal’s fearmongering that competition from public option “radicalism” would usurp the private insurance market lacks evidence: Research suggests a public insurance plan would lead to lower premiums and reap enormous benefits for American taxpayers.

    According to Kaiser Health News, increasing competition in individual health care marketplaces has shown to lower prices for consumers, and less competition in a state can lead to “substantially higher premiums.” In an op-ed published by The Hill, Richard Kirsch of the Roosevelt Institute noted that a public option can keep costs down without limiting provider options, since the government already pays for care at most of the country’s doctors offices and hospitals for Medicare beneficiaries. Unlike private insurers with limited provider networks, a government-run plan would already have the infrastructure to provide low-cost competition nationwide.

    In addition to increasing competition and driving down costs, a public option could dramatically decrease government spending on health care, research suggests. According to an October 2009 policy brief by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley's Center on Health, Economic & Family Security, a public option would be so beneficial for the American health insurance market that it would “most likely both expand coverage and reduce costs to employers, individuals, and the government.” The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) came to the same conclusion in a March 2012 working paper, which included “a public insurance option” among progressive reforms that together could save the government an additional $278 billion over 10 years. Likewise, a November 2013 analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicted that adding a public option to existing Obamacare insurance marketplaces could actually reduce federal spending by $158 billion over 10 years.

    The Journal claims the introduction of a public option would lead to universal single-payer health care, but it fails to provide either any proof that the public option would do that or an explanation of why that would be detrimental. The Journal does use the problems faced by government-assisted nonprofit insurers -- called co-ops -- as proof that a public option would not work, but it doesn’t mention that Republicans in Congress cut co-op funding. Meanwhile, though the president has not advocated a national single-payer health plan, economist Gerald Friedman estimated that such a system could save the American economy as much as $592 billion a year, most of which would come from “slashing the administrative waste associated with the private insurance industry.”

    In 2009, when Congress was still vetting the public option for inclusion in what would become the ACA, opinion polling often showed large majorities in favor of the provision. Right-wing media outlets assailed the provision for months as part of their coordinated campaign to derail health care reform, but even after several years the abandoned option remains popular.