Meeting w/ the president indicates political bias! Which is why no conservative in the history of forever has ever done this and why Fox News has absolutely no White House correspondents and never has! My red herring is a true indicator of conservative intellectualism! Le sighs.

Her last visit was August 5, 2011, well before all of the election coverage started. That fact was omitted by contessa. Without any more information, it is possible the visits were press conferences, a bill signing of other official functions which are open to all the press.

Fox News has absolutely no White House correspondents and never has!

Is this sarcasm that I missed? I can be kinda slow, ya know.

Yes if you read the article written by Michelle Malkin she states that because MSNBC hosts, like Rachel Maddow, have had meetings at the White House that this indicates political bias as if reporters never meet w/ White House officials to discuss political news. Since Fox News also does this it's completely moronic for Malkin to try to skew this as political bias. NOW if she had evidence that the meeting was...I dunno PBO sitting down w/ Maddow and telling her "here's what you're going to say" and then Maddow turning around and doing just that then yeah I could agree that, that's bias. But all news hosts meet periodically w/ the staff of the White House. Usually it's w/ the VP or some other representative from the White House, such as the senior economic adviser. The reporter asks questions about what the sitting administration's goals are, their justifications for bills, etc. Reporters also do this w/ both members of congress in both chambers. Basically any elected official who will meet w/ a reporter- or their staff members- are sought out on a continual basis as a means of learning about what goes on in D.C. To insinuate that Maddow doing this or MSNBC hosts doing this is somehow evidence of a conspiracy is just laughable and by that very same logic would mean that everyone over at Fox News (including Malkin herself) was in on the conspiracy. Contessa linked this as a means of proving bias on behalf of Maddow. Maddow has never stated that she was anything other than a liberal Democrat so yes there are going to be occasions in which her world view skews how she sees the news (just as your political bias skews your view and mine skews mine and so on). But that is unfortunately the reality of our subjective existence as human beings and we are all culpable. This is no more a left wing conspiracy than it is a right wing one than it is a God given one.

Malkin is definitely partisan. I would note, there is a difference between political commentators such as Maddow (MSNBC) and Hannity (FoxNews) and news journalists like Brian Williams and Chris Wallace or Bret Baier.

The point in Malkin's posting that is curious (if true) is:

It was her (Maddow's) fifth visit to Casa Obama; she didn’t respond to questions about what she and her pals discussed with the president.

It is odd for a news journalist not to report on a meeting with a President or so it would seem.

Oh heavens I was not trying to say that Maddow is comparable to Chris Wallace or Brian Williams. They aren't in the same venue by any means. I suppose I should've used pundit instead? I opted for reporter because I thought that would give the best description across the spectrum of politicos (from bloggers to more hard core journalists to pundits etc).

My understanding is that Fox News has also had non-disclosed meetings w/ the White House. Usually they are off-the-record meetings in which the reporter/pundit/personality is attempting to illicit information that can't be given publicly. Remember also that Maddow has been writing a book for the past 3 years (it's finished now and comes out in March) on the changes we've made in warfare. A lot of the "non-disclosed" meetings she has had w/ the White House have been in this relation (judging from what I've read, anywho). Like I said I wouldn't put it in conspiracy realm because Fox News has this same angle. Malkin is reporting it as though Fox News is being kept in the dark. Perhaps they are on a meeting to meeting basis- that very well may be true- but access wise they are not. Or I guess maybe I should start a liberal conspiracy that Obama is secretly plotting w/ the conservatives to turn us into neo-fascists! ;-) See what I'm saying? It's just a weeeeeeee bit too far for me.

But this is different. It is not a change of position, it is a matter of states rights and role versus the federal government. Romney still stands behind what he did in Massachusetts. Believes other states can copy, modify, or provide a totally different framework.

He does not believe this is something the federal government can or should do. Nor would it be Constitutional. They want everyone to THINK he has changed his position on this issue because it gives "cover" to Obamacare.

....or because there is no intellectual consistency between the state's argument and the federal argument that can be made. Honestly if you'd like to try to make it then please do.

....also, Contessa....you're aware the term "flip-flop" as used to regard changes in political positions was originally used by Republicans, correct? Seriously? If you wanted to stay consistent you'd be complaining that Democrats are trying to play catchu-up to the Republican media machine. But of course that would indicate that your position as a Republican was not the universal truth and we couldn't have that, now could we.

....or because there is no intellectual consistency between the state's argument and the federal argument that can be made. Honestly if you'd like to try to make it then please do.

It is called the 10th amendment. There are lots of things the states have the rights to do that the federal government does not. Now, granted reasonable people can disagree on the particulars but this is a well established difference and does provide "intellectual consistency."

Nope.

A) You cannot prevent diseases from crossing state lines, which automatically causes this to be an interstate issue (federal)

B) If, as Romney claims, costs go up because those who are uninsured inflate the market, then the only way this would not traverse states would be if you

1. Stopped allowing people to travel to or from your state

2. Stopped allowing products (including medicines) to be shipped in and out of your state

There isn't an intellectually consistent argument you can make that dictates why it would not be OK at the federal level, but is OK at the state level.

As I said, reasonable people can disagree and the fact that we have several courts ruling differently shows that a good case can be made for either side. Each side has some merit. To say that one side is completely wrong and absent of an intellectual argument is just not true...IMHO.

....there has not been a court ruling that stated the mandate could not cross state lines. The court rulings that threw out the Affordable Care Act w/ regards to the "mandate" did so because the judge stated it was unethical to force people to purchase from any one particular sector (whether private or public). He did not contest the authority of the federal government to exercise said role, he contested that it was unethical to force someone to be compelled to purchase X from a singular private company. He even stated that doing as much would monopolize the private, for-profit insurance market. That's an entirely different argument. Romney stating that people get sick and this increases costs and makes health care affordable cannot be argued to be only valid at the state level because people cross state lines. Because of this you cannot argue that federal imposition is somehow less valid than state imposition, it just doesn't biologically work that way. Now you can certainly argue that people should not be compelled to purchase insurance, but that argument would also be valid at the state level as well as the federal.

Now you can certainly argue that people should not be compelled to purchase insurance, but that argument would also be valid at the state level as well as the federal.

I'm no constitutionalists but I believe the federal government ONLY has the authority given to it in the Constitution, the states have all other "authority" or at least not that restriction. So, yes, it could be unconstitutional for the federal government to do something and that NOT be true for the states.

The logic would be the same was my point. In fact I think that might be where I've lost you. The argument I was making by saying it's not intellectually consistent is that any logic that can be applied to the state level can also be applied to the federal level and vise versa. There doesn't seem to be a compelling argument that would indicate that one somehow necessitates that the other be opted out of, at least given the parameters that Romney has put forward. Now if he made some argument about how the states could better allocate funds or what not then that would be different. But this is not what he has done. His argument has been that people getting sick increases costs when those people do not have insurance therefore you must mandate that they participate in the market and by doing so the market then allows itself to adjust the cost. His argument is that by non-participation you are artificially adjusting the value of health insurance. OK that's fine to argue. But if you make that argument then you cannot say it is somehow more applicable to the state level than federal level given that reasoning. That reasoning would, as I said before, default to the federal government for the reasons I stated. Now you can state that it's unconstitutional to compel people to purchase private insurance or you can argue that the federal government can't allocate resources well enough for it to work at a federal level. Otherwise it's not consistent and that would, to me, amount to a flip-flop (which I believe was the original point of contention by contessa, no?)

Sorry Mouzer, but if I wanted to read a book,I'd curl up on the couch and do so. This is a blog. If you really want people to thouroughly read your posts, they must be more pithy and concise.

So your way of telling me I have illogical arguments is to throw out an illogical argument? Seriously?

You're a piece of work. This is my way of telling you that your logical and illogical arguments would be a better read if they were shorter and more to the point.

Obama is like a rotting fish on the shore. He stinks to high heaven.

Still a better option than Mitt.... ahahahaha

That is if you like high unemployment, higher taxes, lower GDP, less domestic sources of oil, more illegal aliens, more regulations that hinder business growth, more national debt, and more Solyndra's. Obama is for socialists and union lovers only. Which one are you?