From the May 3 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:
Loading the player ...
After downplaying the effects of the government spending cuts known as sequestration, right-wing media are now claiming that President Obama is trying to maximize sequestration pain.
From the March 1 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:
Loading the player ...
On Fox News, Republican strategist Brad Blakeman denied the scientific consensus on manmade climate change, saying "For every one scientist that says there is, I'll give you 10 scientists that said it's not manmade":
But in fact, credible surveys have repeatedly found that the vast majority of climate scientists agree humans are changing the climate. For instance, a 2009 survey published by the American Geophysical Union found that 97 percent of those who specialize in climate science said human activity is contributing to rising global temperatures:
Fox News contributor Bradley Blakeman joins the right-wing media's assault on early voting by misreading the Constitution to fashion an argument that our founding document forbids early voting. In a Newsmax column, he argues that the Constitution requires that all votes be cast on a single day, although it contains no such requirement.
The Constitution provides in Article 2, Section 1 that:
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing [sic] the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
Under the Electoral College system established by the Constitution, voters choose electors, who elect the president. Thus, the Constitution sets out three -- and only three -- rules regarding the timing of voting in presidential elections. One, Congress determines when voters choose electors. Two, Congress determines "the day" on which electors cast their votes for president. And three, the day electors cast their votes "shall be the same throughout the United States."
Blakeman, a former Bush administration official, misreads these three rules as an argument that early voting is unconstitutional because "[o]ur Founding Fathers specifically set forth 'a national Election Day' -- not days." He also writes that:
I believe the Founding Fathers set forth one day for voting because they knew that in order to best execute a fair election and in order for Americans to understand and appreciate their right to vote that voting should involve some level of "sacrifice" of time and effort.
The Constitution is clear. Congress is given the responsibility to set a single day for a national election -- not days. States have no right to subvert the clear directive and intent of the U.S. Constitution when it comes to national voting.
This argument is simply wrong. The Constitution says nothing about "a national election day" or "a single day for national elections." The Founders never "set forth one day for voting." They did provide in the Constitution that presidential electors cast their votes on the same day, but the Constitution clearly distinguishes that process from voters going to the polls.
Blakeman may simply be confused about what the Constitution actually says, because he writes that the relevant provision of the document is "Article 2, Section 1: Clause 4: Election Day". In fact, the phrase "Election Day" does not appear in the original text of the Constitution. Of course, subheadings added later by editors of various published editions of the Constitution do not alter the document's meaning or have the force of law.
Blakeman is correct that in 1845 Congress passed legislation establishing a single date for voters to choose electors. But early voting and absentee voting, in which voters in many states cast ballots over a period of days or weeks, do not prevent ballots from being counted, and electors chosen, on a single day. And in any case, arguments about the law establishing a national election day are irrelevant to Blakeman's misreading of the Constitution.
Fox News stoked fears of terrorism and distorted the facts surrounding the 9-11 attacks to slam the Obama administration's deferred action decision, with anchor Gregg Jarrett suggesting that President Obama "is making it easier for acts of terrorism to be committed." Jarrett and guest Brad Blakeman, a Republican strategist and former Bush White House official, used the 9-11 hijackers as examples for what could possibly happen if undocumented youths are allowed to obtain driver's licenses under the plan.
Not only is it demeaning to compare undocumented youth who have grown up in the United States to the 9-11 hijackers; it's also ridiculous knowing the facts surrounding 9-11.
On June 15, the Obama administration announced an immigration plan that will give eligible undocumented youth a chance to avoid deportation and obtain a legal work permit. The program went into effect on Wednesday. Depending on the state, some undocumented youths will also be able to acquire driver's licenses and Social Security cards.
On America's Newsroom this morning, Jarrett and Blakeman seized on the possibility of undocumented youths obtaining state driver's licenses to link the youths to the 9-11 hijackers and fearmonger about the potential for more terrorist attacks. Blakeman asserted that the hijackers "used driver's licenses" to "get on planes," and that they did so while here illegally.
Picking up the theme, Jarrett then said to Blakeman:
JARRETT: California, for example, is now using the president's executive decision on deferred status to give people who are here illegally a driver's license. Now the 9-11 hijackers, many of whom were here illegally as well, obtained state licenses using them to board the airplanes. Could one argue, Brad, that the president is making it easier for acts of terrorism to be committed? Do you worry about that?
In fact, at the time of the attacks, only two of the 19 hijackers were in violation of their immigration status for overstaying their visas, and none would have qualified under the deferred action program. The 9-11 hijackers entered the country legally on non-immigrant visas.
Brad Blakeman, a Republican strategist and former Bush White House aide, today pushed the GOP narrative that President Obama favored health care reform over fixing the economy. This narrative doesn't hold up to the facts, including that Obama pushed through the first of many economic initiatives a month after he was elected -- more than a year before health care reform became law.
In an appearance on Fox News' America's Newsroom, Blakeman lashed out at Obama, saying, "If health care is struck down, this president has an awful lot of explaining to do to the American people as to why he concentrated on health care at the expense of the economy."
The narrative that Obama chose health care reform over the economy is busted by the facts.
Obama's first speech to Congress, on February 24, 2009, focused on the economy, as CNN noted in an article that included the transcript of his speech. The headline CNN used read: "Obama speech to Congress focuses on economy."
On February 17, 2009, Obama signed the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act into law, which was described by the Associated Press as "an ambitious package of federal spending and tax cuts designed to revive the economy and save millions of jobs."
Obama also signed credit card reform into law in May 2009, assisted General Motors in exiting bankruptcy protection in July 2009, and announced several small business lending initiatives in October 2009.
Moreover, Obama administration measures have helped grow the economy. A May 2012 CBO report estimated that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act "lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.1 percentage points and 0.8 percentage points" and "increased the number of people employed by between 0.2 million and 1.5 million" during the first quarter of 2012. Using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Alan Krueger stated on June 1 that "the economy has added private sector jobs for 27 straight months, for a total of 4.3 million payroll jobs over that period."
Blakeman's remarks come on the heels of media figures, including Rush Limbaugh and The Washington Examiner's Byron York, amplifying Mitt Romney's discredited allegation that Obama knowingly slowed down the economic recovery by pushing for health care reform.
When will media outlets begin correcting this false narrative?
President Obama officially kicked off his reelection campaign today with a rally at Ohio State University. Viewers of Fox News could be forgiven for not knowing this, since the conservative network covered less than three minutes of the actual event before cutting out to get "reaction" from Republican strategist Brad Blakeman.
Imagine what Blakeman might have had to say had he heard the whole speech, which continued for quite a while, to the determined disinterest of the Murdoch network.
In the time it took the president to finish his remarks, Fox News aired several news segments, including a sit-down with Rep. Peter King (R-NY) about how the White House is supposedly screwing up the "war on terror," and a piece on how President Obama should be more like Ronald Reagan.
This was made all the more absurd by the guest's acknowledgement right out of the gate that "it's so difficult to even compare the two periods." Indeed it is! But there was clearly no interest in covering the president's first official reelection campaign speech, and they had to air something, right?
After Fox News aired a doctored version of Teamsters president James Hoffa's Labor Day speech, the right-wing media pointed to the clearly edited video to accuse Hoffa of encouraging violence against conservatives. In fact, unaltered video -- video aired by Fox hours after the clearly edited version had been heavily promoted throughout the conservative media -- shows that Hoffa was encouraging the crowd to vote against Republicans in the 2012 election.
From the April 25 edition of Fox News' America Live:
Loading the player ...
Right-wing media figures seized on what ABC News' Jake Tapper has described as an "apparently erroneous" report of a statement allegedly made by President Obama's nominee for special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference Rashad Hussain to portray him as a "pro-jihadist," a "radical," and a "terrorist sympathizer." But, as Tapper points out, Hussain has argued that terrorism is "antithetical" to Islam had has written extensively on "[d]iscrediting the terrorist ideology...to stop al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups."
From the August 17 edition of MSNBC Live:
Loading the player ...