fox news sunday

Home » fox news sunday

Benghazi – revisited, again

I’m not sure why, but for some reason conservatives continue to be fascinated fixated on Benghazi. Conservatives have investigated. They have questioned. They have postulated. Yet, they found nothing. On Sunday, Vice President Dick Cheney was on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. Now, I have no idea why Chris Wallace would waste his time talking with Dick Cheney. The former vice president really has no new insights. His point of view is clear. As a matter fact, you can put a cardboard cutout of Dick Cheney in a chair of any Sunday talk show and you know exactly what the former vice president will say. There are no circumstances in which he believes US military force is not the right option. He will always support an aggressive posture.

Oh, the lies. It would be different if Chris Wallace did not know the truth, but he does. Yet, he lets Cheney paint his own version of events in Benghazi. We know from testimony in front of the Senate that President Obama directed Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta to “do everything we needed to do to try to protect lives.” Somehow, this little fact was never discussed on Fox News Sunday. Why not? Because their whole goal was to try to make the president look weak. A president who actually instructed to do everything needed isn’t weak. (more…)

By |2013-06-18T22:05:01-04:00June 18th, 2013|Foreign Affairs, Obama administration, Party Politics|Comments Off on Benghazi – revisited, again

Ron Paul proves he is not electable

The way that ultra-conservatives have been elected to office is by hiding their extremist views. Governor Scott Walker is an excellent example. He didn’t talk about crushing unions or hating unions during the campaign. He talked about fiscal responsibility, which is generic enough to appeal to voters. Ron Paul doesn’t have that kind of reserve. He says what’s on his mind. Today while in the friendly atmosphere of Fox News, Representative Paul spoke his mind and proved to America that his views are way out of the mainstream.

From Think Progress:

Appearing on Fox News Sunday this morning, Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) defended his longstanding view that Medicare, Social Security (and pretty much everything else) violate the Constitution. At one point, Paul even claimed that letting Social Security and similar programs to move forward is just like permitting slavery:

WALLACE: You talk a lot about the Constitution. You say Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are all unconstitutional.

PAUL: Technically, they are. . . . there’s no authority [in the Constitution]. Article I, Section 8 doesn’t say I can set up an insurance program for people. What part of the Constitution are you getting it from? The liberals are the ones who use this General Welfare Clause. . . . That is such an extreme liberal viewpoint that has been mistaught in our schools for so long and that’s what we have to reverse—that very notion that you’re presenting.

WALLACE: Congressman, it’s not just a liberal view. It was the decision of the Supreme Court in 1937 when they said that Social Security was constitutional under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

PAUL: And the Constitution and the courts said slavery was legal to, and we had to reverse that.

By |2011-05-16T00:35:00-04:00May 16th, 2011|Domestic Issues|Comments Off on Ron Paul proves he is not electable

Opposing Newt Gingrich just seems right

Newt Gingrich has been out of power now for a decade or two, yet is still dominant figure in the Republican Party and on the Sunday talk shows. Can you think of any Democratic equivalent? There is none. Through hypnosis or magic, Newt Gingrich manages to convince Americans that he is still relevant. He has made two statements in the last couple of days which I think need discussion. About 10 days ago he wrote an op-ed piece which argued for more offshore drilling and then today, on Fox News Sunday, he called for the President to withdraw Elena Kagan’s nomination for the Supreme Court.

Let’s start with the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. As you know it’s been more than three weeks since the explosion, the death of 11 American workers and the subsequent disastrous spill in the Gulf. The exact circumstances of how this happened are not clear. President Obama was 100% correct when he said that there’s enough blame to go around. Newt Gingrich argues that one disaster should not cripple the industry, nor cause us to abandon offshore drilling. He lists a litany of disasters in aviation, nuclear energy and even the levee failure in New Orleans as examples of Americans investigating a disaster and then moving forward. His take-home message is that we should not abandon offshore drilling. We should learn from this mistake and move forward. I viscerally oppose just about everything that Newt Gingrich says. I know he’s not talking for me or people who think like I do. Instead, he’s talking for the corporations. I’m surprised that there is no acknowledgment that cleaner, less destructive forms of energy exist.

Suppose in 1980, when Ronald Reagan moved into the White House, he had embraced alternative energy. Where would we be now? If Ronald Reagan had poured federal resources into the development of more efficient solar cells, wind power and even tidal power on the coasts, would we have affordable alternative energy by now? You figure that 20 or 30 or even 40% of our energy could now come from alternative renewable sources. Oil would not be eliminated, but oil consumption would have been reduced. How could have been a bad thing? Would we have invaded Iraq? I doubt it. I see America’s consumption of oil as the equivalent of a cocaine addict’s addiction to crack. We have to put down the crack pipe. So, I have no problem with safe offshore drilling (I just think it’s an oxymoron at this time). We need to focus on alternative energy.

Watch the Video:

Newt Gingrich says Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan should be disqualified because she did not allow military recruiters on campus. The case went to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court ruled with the military. I’m not sure why this should disqualify her. Newt Gingrich couches his comments in patriotic rhetoric. “We’re fighting two wars.” My answer would be — so? If it is wrong to have military recruiters on campus in peacetime, it would still be wrong in wartime. Therefore, the context is not important. What is important is the reason why Elena Kagan, as Dean of Harvard Law School, opposed having military recruiters on campus. Those recruiters could not guarantee that some students would not be discriminated against. I’m beginning to like Dean Kagan more and more. With conservatives opposing her, maybe I need to crank up my support of her nomination. (To be honest, I’m ambivalent. I agree with Glenn Greenwald that we really should have some idea of how she feels about the major issues of our day. I do not believe that anything that will be said in a Senate hearing will be truly indicative of how she feels. Instead, I suspect what will be said in the Senate Judiciary hearing will be just enough to get her confirmed, but not enough to get a true grasp on many of these issues.)

By |2010-05-16T21:03:40-04:00May 16th, 2010|Energy, Party Politics, Supreme court|Comments Off on Opposing Newt Gingrich just seems right
Go to Top