Did you know that international law could supercede American law? In fact, Congress may not be able to repeal ObamaCare because it would be in violation of international law. That is the point now being made by Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank. He cites the United Nations High Commissioner on human rights as well as Article 25 of the Universal Declarations of Human Rights and article 5(e) of the International Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimation to make his case.
With Republicans set to make another run at repealing and replacing ObamaCare this week, look for the Big Three networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) to blame conservatives, specifically, the House Freedom Caucus for any sort of obstruction to getting a deal done. In 30 days of health care debate coverage (March 7 through April 5), the broadcast networks consistently framed it as a fight between unreasonable conservatives versus more moderate Republicans and Senate Democrats by overwhelmingly applying ideological labels to one side of the argument.
The latest episode of ABC’s Designated Survivor made it abundantly clear that the conspiracy element of this show is merely a thin patina of intrigue allowing the writers to wipe away Republican congressional majorities and fantasize about the “progress” they could be making in the wake of a massive crisis. The April 12 episode doubled down on last week’s anti-gun rhetoric, mentioning “background checks” once every 3.8 minutes.
Fusion’s Alex Pareene seems to think that America’s biggest problem isn’t any of the usual suspects (e.g., deindustrialization, terrorism, health-care costs) but rather the popularity of conservative media among conservative politicians. For a long time, contended Pareene in a Wednesday piece, “the conservative movement peddled one set of talking points to the rabble, while its elites consumed a more grounded and reality-based media.” Then, however, “Congressional Republicans went from people who were able to turn their bullshit-hose on their constituents, in order to rile them up, to people who pointed it directly at themselves, mouths open.”
Throughout the presidential campaign, especially during primary-and-caucus season, many on the right called Donald Trump a squish, even a liberal. They should be much happier now, contends Jeet Heer, in part because Trump’s position on health care indicates that he’s “succumbing to the central policy of conservative Republicans: cruelty to the needy...To simply wait for the ACA to ‘explode’ would be to knowingly doom countless Americans to uncertainty about one of the most fundamental matters in life: their health.”
"Paid family leave." You must use those exact words in that exact order or Mika Brzezinski will go into nitpick overdrive. Such was the case on the March 28 edition of Morning Joe when Mika was interviewing Congressman Raul Labrador who committed the high sin of saying several terms meaning just that yet annoying her by not reciting the exact approved liberal term.
New York Times political reporter Jeremy Peters used the failure of President Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress to repeal Obamacare in order to pile on the hostile ideological labels in his Monday post-mortem, particularly on top of those “Republican hard-liners” who don’t believe in good governance: “G.O.P., Once Unified Against Obama, Struggles for Consensus Under Trump.” In all there were 15 ideological labels in the 1100-word story: 11 “conservative” labels, two “right,” one “far right,” and one “hard-liners.”
Monday on Good Morning America, ABC analyst Matthew Dowd used yet another wacky analogy to advise the president on how he should behave. After gleefully hyping Trump’s “stunning” and “devastating” defeat on repealing Obamacare, the panel wondered how Trump was going to be able to deliver on any of his other campaign promises. Dowd lectured that the onus was on Trump to “fundamentally change” who he was, to appease Democrats.
The mainstream media’s obsession with Fox News continues, as the New York Times sends intrepid reporters into the fierce jungle-land of right-wing television to watch an entire day of it. They have escaped back with this dispatch from the front lines: “One Nation, Under Fox: 18 Hours With a Network That Shapes America -- Fox News is a singular force, crafting a searing narrative about what’s happening in the world for millions of viewers, including President Trump.” One can’t picture the Times undertaking such an expedition during the Obama years, going on a brave quest into the left-wing fever swamps of MSNBC (and CNN, and ABC...).
The New York Times engaged in some serious labeling overload (and a bit of post-mortem grave-dancing over the House Freedom Caucus) in the run-up and aftermath of the failure of Republicans in Congress to pass a bill repealing and replacing Obamacare. A nasty online headline no doubt brought chortles to the smug liberals who read the Times: “Republicans Land a Punch on Health Care, to Their Own Face.”
Minutes after the GOP leadership-led bill American Health Care Act (AHCA) was pulled from the House, NBC’s Meet the Press moderator Chuck Todd concocted the loony idea that the AHCA failed not because it couldn’t unite all factions of the GOP but that they chose not to work with Democrats. Over on ABC, former Clinton partisan George Stephanopoulos and correspondent Jonathan Karl were a bit overly dramatic, boasting of the “crushing,” “devastating” defeat for Republicans.
With the potential repeal and replacement of Obamacare looming large in the news, a discussion about health care during Thursday morning’s edition of the Cable News Network’s New Day program became surly when Mary Katharine Ham, a senior writer for The Federalist, got into a debate with “nasty” co-host Chris Cuomo.