It’s sad if you think it’s an oversight, I guess, but it isn’t. I don’t think the network cares about the story. Maybe an individual anchor didn’t know about it - which is hard to believe in its own right - but that’s not why Fox hasn’t paid attention to the story.
Hell, if you’re just starting to actually, you know, get involved, I guess it’s good for something. That begs the question: what took you so long?
And even though I’m asking you the question, it goes out to anyone else reading.
That’s right, put 'em on the defensive!
He is an ass. He vetoed an insurance bill in Arkansas that would have benefited consumers because it used the prhase, “Acts of God”.
I’ve been involved in lots of politics and contacted my senator/rep numerous times. This is the first time I’ve contacted Kirk because Kirk just got into office.
As for this particular issue, it hasn’t been something high on my radar.
Yeah, that’s a hurdle for sure. I mean, everything is important, but to varying degrees. You can’t respond to everything with gusto, because you’d run out.
…Or would you?
I heard on the radio speculation that the real reason Republicans kept blocking this legislation was that the money to pay for it as coming from closing a corporate tax loophole on profits made outside the US. The US Chamber of Commerce lobbied them to be against that. Now suddenly there is talk of changing how the money is paid for and the Bill may pass.
Like Fox does?
According to Slate, they did change the way the bill is financed, so that “it will be paid for mainly with a 2 percent fee on federal contracts awarded to foreign countries that don’t allow U.S. businesses to compete—and brought the cost of the bill down from $7.4 billion to $6.2 billion, after which Republicans were more willing to get onboard.”
Though when I saw that I did wonder why we even allow federal contracts to be awarded to foreign countries that don’t allow U.S. business to compete. Let alone, apparently, $310 billion of them.
The bill just passed in the Senate by unanimous consent.
The bill was cut from $7.4 billion over eight years to $4.3 billion over five years for health coverage to the 9/11 workers.
Stewart and this show are getting a lot of credit for getting this bill passed. The White House and a number of NY politicians have singled him out, thanking him for putting a spotlight on the issue.
Lawrence O’Donnell also showed a bit of the Rachel Maddow interview where Stuart denied that he did this kind of thing. But obviously, for this issue at least he changed his mind.
My guess is if anything this will make him feel bad for not shining the spotlight sooner.
You can see the whole interview if you want. It is worth a complete listen. I hear him making the point that he is not a journalist and to no small degree bemoaning the impotence of satire and comedy to really make a difference. That all he can do is criticize. He very much feels a kinship with the tradition of the Smothers Brothers and of Charlie Chaplin’s “Great Dictator”. I also hear him consistently focusing on the inadequacy of the media and the polarity of the process preventing real things from getting done.
I hear no denial that he attempts to do what he did; only a recognition that it usually does not matter much, really. Actually making a difference? Yes, he should enjoy that this time he made a difference. And made some funny at the same time. Those moments are likely to be few.
Here’s a CNN debate on Stewart’s role in the matter (ironically lasting longer than any piece they had done on the bill). Apparently there’s major umbrage taken over theNYT comparing Stewart to Edward R. Murrow.
Apparently some journalists are offended that Stewart is getting recognition for doing a job they couldn’t be bothered to do. He deserves a significant amount of credit for the passage of this bill.
That Times article was some pretty high praise indeed. But then I have felt for years that Stewart did a better job of highlighting the hypocrisies of politicians and news agencies than anyone else.