On the 5/12 edition of the Fox "News" program America's News Headquarters, one of their legal analysts openly wished that gas prices stay close to $5.00 a gallon in November. I wouldn't have believed it if I didn't hear it myself, but here she is:
I suspected that some on the right secretly wished economic woes would hit the U.S. and as a result, turn voters against President Obama. However, I didn't expect any of them to admit it on camera. This legal analyst probably considers herself a patriot, yet she wishes for Americans to take a hit financially. Her comments are revealing for a couple of reasons. For one, this just shows you she doesn't give a damn about the regular people. Republicans regaining power is her top priority. Secondly, if this analyst is wishing gas prices stay around $5.00 a gallon in November, she's basically saying any sitting president has no control over gas prices. I wonder if the Foxbots will be able to connect the dots on that one.
I'd like to think most would consider this woman's comments fucked up regardless of their political viewpoint. However, if anyone wants to defend what she said, I'm listening.
Note: I don't know the name of this analyst so if anyone does, please feel free to share it with me.
16 comments:
I believe she was only being sarcastic. However, only an insane person would want to pay $5 a gallon for gas.
Maybe it's time for us to buy horse and buggies, well, maybe not. It would take a month for me to visit my family. *shaking head*
Come on now Leticia, she was not being sarcastic. She even said, "no joke" afterward.
I don't know, I heard it again and I am hearing sarcasm, but if she is serious, that's pretty pathetic.
I listened to it repeatedly and I'm just not hearing the sarcasm. In addition to saying "no joke", the analyst went on to explain why gas prices remaining high would be a good thing. I wonder how this analyst feels as gas prices continue to drop.
Malcolm, she's probably having a fit?
I am thrilled the price of gas is dropping! Let's shoot for $1.50 a gallon....yeah I can keep dreaming.
It's obvious to anyone with eyes and ears of their own to know the Right will facilitate the collapse of Americans' standard of living to obstruct, and then blame, on Obama.
The Right claims progressives "hate America" while demonstrating behavior that indicates they hate Americans.
"It's obvious to anyone with eyes and ears of their own to know the Right will facilitate the collapse of Americans' standard of living to obstruct, and then blame, on Obama."
Actually, it was the Obama administration (in particular the energy secretary) that has called for much higher gas prices. This matters. These people have power to do this. An analyst on a news channel has none at all.
And by the way, what you claim is not "obvious" at all. In fact, the opposite is true.
Leticia: Wanting gas prices to drop should be a non-partisan issue. I'm glad to hear you say you're thrilled about the drop.
Dave: In the minds of many on The Right, seeing things differently than they do means you hate America. Can you imagine the outrage on The Right if a Repub was in the White House and a liberal pundit said what this Fox "News" legal analyst said?!
dmarks: Your statement about the Obama administration is sketchy at best. Please see the 3rd bullet point at the link I provided below.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/03/obama-wanted-higher-gasoline-prices/
Also, gas prices are driven by the global market. There is very little a president can do to affect gas prices. If what you said is true, do you blame then-President Bush for the fact that the average price was over $4.00 a gallon for regular gas?
Stephen Chu is the Obama administration official who wanted this awful thing to happen. Someone like this has no business doing anything other than cleaning toilets... let alone being in a high government position. Yet, not long after he made this statement, Obama hired him as energy secretary.
I never claimed OBama himself said this, as I only remembered Chu. But his administration, his representatives, did.
Now as for Obama. Factcheck is particularly damning. Note this:
"But that’s not what Obama said. Rather, when asked in 2008 about then-$4 per gallon gasoline prices, and whether that could be a good thing to encourage people toward alternative energy, Obama responded that he “would have preferred a gradual adjustment”
Yes, it is quite clear he wanted it to happen. But he said he wanted it to happen slowly. Factcheck inexplicably comes to the conclusion that wanting it to happen slowly = not wanting it to happen at all.
I've seen them get things wrong before.
"It's obvious to anyone with eyes and ears of their own to know the Right will facilitate the collapse of Americans' standard of living to obstruct, and then blame, on Obama."
Exhibit A:
I never claimed OBama himself said this,
Yet the "blame Obama" appears:
Yes, it is quite clear he wanted it to happen.
How's that again?
Here's what was said:
Harwood: So could these high prices help us?
Obama: I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing. But if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment, first of all by putting more money into their pockets, but also by encouraging the market to adapt to these new circumstances more quickly, particularly US automakers, then I think ultimately, we can come out of this stronger and have a more efficient energy policy than we do right now.
There, you see. He even explained what he meant by "gradual adjustment". It was not raising taxes on gas.
However:
his representatives, did.
No, Chu was not his "representative" when his comment was made in the context of gas taxes.
Did someone not completely read the linked article?
Did Chu really say that? Yes, but he said it before he became energy secretary and before Obama won the 2008 presidential election. Shortly after becoming energy secretary, Chu said it would be “completely unwise to want to increase the price of gasoline.”
Note that the context in the story was a discussion of gasoline taxes. The story immediately went on to note that Obama “has dismissed the idea of boosting the federal gasoline tax, a move energy experts say could be the single most effective step to promote alternative energies and temper demand. Mr. Obama said Sunday that a heightened gasoline tax would be a ‘mistake’ because it would put ‘additional burdens on American families right now.’ ”
In April 2009, as secretary of energy, Chu was asked about his 2008 interview with the Wall Street Journal at a congressional hearing on Earth Day. He told Congress he rejected the idea of raising taxes or taking any steps that would raise the price of gasoline.
There we go. Context.
No matter. It will not deter the "Blame Everything On Obama" game.
dmarks: Since joining the Obama administration, Chu has changed course on gasoline prices. When asked, he said it would be "completely unwise to want to increase the price of gasoline". However, I suspect that his reason for changing course is political.
As for President Obama's comments that you cited, you conveniently left out the rest of it. The complete quote is that he “would have preferred a gradual adjustment” because “the fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing.”
Now we can go 'round and 'round about what President Obama meant. However, let's get back to the topic of this post because you've managed to sidestep it for the most part. Whether or not this Fox legal analyst has any power to affect gas prices is irrelevant. What she said was indefensible. What say you?
"Can you imagine the outrage on The Right if a Repub was in the White House and a liberal pundit said what this Fox "News" legal analyst said?!"
There wouldn't be much. No calls for censoring the channel (unlike liberals wanting to censor Fox News).
The rest of the quote is not relevant. In it, Obama is just explaining details of the gas price increase he favors. He still comes across as favoring it.
No need to go "round and round". Obama smiled on gas price increases, and there's no way to get around it.
"Whether or not this Fox legal analyst has any power to affect gas prices is irrelevant. What she said was indefensible. What say you?"
Its indefensible, but again, irrelevant. She does not set policy. It's nothing like when a President and his energy secretary says it. Their statements and policy mean something.
"Since joining the Obama administration, Chu has changed course on gasoline prices."
So this must be another case of the Obama administration dropping the ball and not vetting someone, then. Like with Van Jones, the genocidal kook who made it into a czars position.
"However, I suspect that his reason for changing course is political."
Which would mean that if he had a choice, Chu would pursue a very destructive policy?
Dave: Thanks for kicking some more knowledge to dmarks. If he wants to continue trying to spin it, I don't know if there's any more you can do.
dmarks: The fact that this legal analyst doesn't set policy is irrelevant. What she said was fucked up and there's no two ways about it. At least you did finally admit that her comments are indefensible.
"So this must be another case of the Obama administration dropping the ball and not vetting someone, then. Like with Van Jones, the genocidal kook who made it into a czars position."
That's just more off-topic BS on your part dude.
"Which would mean that if he had a choice, Chu would pursue a very destructive policy?"
I have no idea. Look, if you wanna write an opinion piece about how you feel President Obama and Stephen Chu want to jack up gas prices to further their agenda, have at it. However, I'm done talking about it here.
dmarks: "There wouldn't be much." Please! The right-wing noise machine would have been all over this story if it was reversed.
Post a Comment