TPM LiveWire
MSNBC's Ratigan Yells At Congresswoman (VIDEO)
Christina Bellantoni | December 18, 2009, 10:49AM
Share
Send to a friend!
MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan had a testy exchange with Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz this morning over health care.
Ratigan raised his voice several times and they sparred over whether one was allowing the other to speak.
"There's not much point in having me on if you're not going to let me respond," said Wasserman Schultz (D-FL).
"I'm all ears," Ratigan responded.
The Congresswoman told Ratigan, "You can be your own guest" and he accused her of using standard talking points and said the interview was a waste of time.
Watch:
Late Update: Ratigan tweeted that he plans to apologize: "Will apologize for losing temper. Won't apologize for challenging lies and misinformation. USA needs apology for destructive false solutions."
Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
lpeggy
December 18, 2009 11:10 AM
Dylan was totally disrespectful to Congresswoman Shultz. He and Ed Schultz are trying to out shout each other. This is a Congresswoman and a cancer survivor, and IMHO he treated her really shabbily. :-(
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
December 18, 2009 11:37 AM in reply to lpeggy
How is the fact she is a cancer survivor relevant to anything? And I have had cancer for over 7 years, so please, don't try and tell me I don't know what it's like.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
December 18, 2009 11:40 AM in reply to masanf
It might mean that she knows a few things about health care in this country from an intensely personal perspective.
Either way, I am tired of tv personalities being a-holes to guests...that goes for wingnut talking heads as well as left-wing talking heads. A skillful news person knows how to ask the right questions and doesn't need to shout.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
December 18, 2009 12:29 PM in reply to jenesq
Me too. I stopped watching him in the morning because he just talks talks talks, loves to hear his own voice, asks multiple part questions and is a total asshole. He's 36 years old and he thinks he knows everything about everything.
All these talking heads are the same.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MikeE
December 18, 2009 1:41 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Shabbily done on his part, but I have to say he's one of two ex-CNBCers (the other: Donny Deutsch) who have been consistently populist in comparison to the "let them eat cake" Repubs and Money Honeys. Something in the air these days?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
December 18, 2009 2:05 PM in reply to MikeE
We can hear Ratigan's uninformed opinion, or that of his guest who actually has some knowledge of the politics of health care reform.
Ratigan's rant does express the frustration of a lot of us who feel that the Congress is handing a monopoly to the insurance companies so they can get even richer. But I'd much rather hear the rant from a source that mattered rather than someone who appears to blow-dry what's left of his hair rather than think or react to others.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MikeE
December 18, 2009 2:26 PM in reply to Richardxx
Well, why watch teevee then? Read Al Franken and he'll school you smart on the "Infotainers"-- Rat-dude is no better than AC360, but that's my highly-qualified subjective opinion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MikeE
December 18, 2009 2:28 PM in reply to MikeE
Read: he's no WORSE -- oops!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sasha
December 18, 2009 4:59 PM in reply to MikeE
How is making her sit there while he pontificates "nailing" her?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dragnet
December 18, 2009 4:55 PM in reply to MikeE
Exactly. She came on national TV to sell a shitty bill to this country and thought she'd be allowed to do so...and instead Ratigan nailed her.
We need more of this from him and the rest of the media. Fuck deference. Too many of these guys are shills and need to taken hardcore. And that's what you saw here, folks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
December 18, 2009 5:40 PM in reply to dragnet
wrong.
not letting someone answer your loaded questions is not 'nailing' anything.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jezreel
December 18, 2009 7:53 PM in reply to dragnet
Agreed. While I respect Rep. Wasserman-Shultz for her knowledge of pending legislation and admire her courage in fighting breast cancer, I completely agree with Dylan Ratigan on this issue.
Wasserman-Shultz came on his show to sell a piece of legislation that will be hurtful to consumers and by extension damaging to the Democratic Party.
As with other guests on his show, Ratigan called her out for spewing Democratic talking points without engaging in substantive debate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shekissesfrogs
December 18, 2009 10:13 PM in reply to Jezreel
The is the poo-poo party thread for the bad bill apologists.
I apologize if it gets on anyone.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
December 18, 2009 3:28 PM in reply to lousgirl84
That's the same reason I cannot watch Christ Matthews. He insists on talking over his guests and telling them what the answer should be. Wasserman-Schultz was spot on when she said, "You could be your own guest." Great line!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VictorLaszlo
December 18, 2009 4:49 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Damn, he's 36?! I would have guessed 56.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JEP07
December 21, 2009 12:20 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Reminds me of Beck when he was on CNN, I always got the feeling he was auditioning for Ailes.
By golly, you could call me prescient on that one.
Maybe that's what Ratagain's up to.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lpeggy
December 18, 2009 11:54 AM in reply to masanf
Sorry, I should have been more specific. I meant that she is probably the last person who doesn't understand the need for health care reform, after what she went through last year. She didn't know if she was going to live or die. Her words, not mine.
BTW, I am really sorry to hear about your health, and I would never presume to lecture you or Wasserman-Shultz about health care. All the best...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
December 18, 2009 1:56 PM in reply to lpeggy
You don't have to apologize to masanf. He's a troll.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Grackle
December 18, 2009 12:46 PM in reply to masanf
Really. My spouse is a survivor, too. The last thing we've wanted is for people to treat us differently.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Johnny2Bad
December 18, 2009 2:06 PM in reply to masanf
Riight.
Cancer survivors can be idiots too. Its not a "get out of jail free card".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
henk
December 18, 2009 12:36 PM in reply to lpeggy
Ed Schultz's style may not appeal to you or me, but Ed brings a whole new group to the table. He does appeal to many in the working class, he speaks credibly about sports and hunting which works against the typical Liberal stereotype. His radio show is one that can be played on the job site radio. That's an area that Rush has had a lock on for a very long time. We need more like him, not less.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dick c
December 18, 2009 1:35 PM in reply to lpeggy
Ratigan tweeted: Will apologize for losing temper. Won't apologize for
challenging lies and misinformation. USA needs apology for destructive false solutions
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
December 18, 2009 2:20 PM in reply to dick c
He didn't challenge any lies and misinformation because he never gave her an opportunity to spout any lies and/or misinformation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mateo123
December 18, 2009 1:49 PM in reply to lpeggy
Oh please. Please. This is a Congresswoman and a cancer survivor? Come on. She can try to answer questions about WHY the market is so excited about this new health insurance plan.
How about this?
Markets are irrational sometimes. Today, insurers can cover everyone and they choose to exclude millions who, like me, have a preexisting condition. This bill will change that. They choose to exclude millions who cannot afford their premiums. This bill will change that. Is it perfect? Nothing that requires Joe LIEberman's signature is perfect. It's better than what we have today, though, and that is why I support it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ray reynolds
December 18, 2009 4:29 PM in reply to Mateo123
No kidding. Why are we ignoring issues like thousands dying under 50 years of GOP healthcare and talking about raising ones voice?
She survived cancer but needs an apology for a loud host?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mateo123
December 18, 2009 1:51 PM in reply to lpeggy
Oh please. Please. This is a Congresswoman and a cancer survivor? Come on. She can try to answer questions about WHY the market is so excited about this new health insurance plan.
How about this?
Markets are irrational sometimes. Today, insurers can cover everyone and they choose to exclude millions who, like me, have a preexisting condition. This bill will change that. They choose to exclude millions who cannot afford their premiums. This bill will change that. Is it perfect? Nothing that requires Joe LIEberman's signature is perfect. It's better than what we have today, though, and that is why I support it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Johnny2Bad
December 18, 2009 2:13 PM in reply to Mateo123
What it doesn't do is combine your two points.
Just because they will be forced to sell insurance to folks with PEC's doesn't mean you'll be able to afford it. As Gov. Dean said, private insurers can charge you up to 300% more.
Of course, the taxpayer will cover the difference if you can't pay.
Now explain to me how is that better.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ducatiaz
December 18, 2009 7:48 PM in reply to Mateo123
And the insurance companies will only be allowed to charge you three times as much for your pre-existing condition.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shekissesfrogs
December 18, 2009 10:05 PM in reply to Mateo123
Markets go up with good news. Windfall profits are on the horizon!
People are irrational, not markets.
Markets can be gamed which causes bubbles.
So we shouldn't believe our lying eyes?
Cant pretend on this one dude, when the insurance companies are exclaiming "We won!" and the markets are up by 10%, thats huge!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
denisrobert
December 18, 2009 2:58 PM in reply to lpeggy
Wassermann was being an a-hole herself, consistently refusing to answer a very simple question. She was being disrespectful; it is highly unprofessional for a representative of the people to simply refuse to answer a question because the correct answer is inconvenient. That is what she was doing, and Ratigan was completely correct both in his analysis, and in his refusal to let her get away with BS.
A congressperson is not *owed* respect. They must *earn* it, just like everyone else. And the fact that she is a cancer survivor means absolutely nothing; it does not change the fact that she knows very well why the market reacted the way it did, and she was being dishonest in her answers.
period.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Waltz
December 18, 2009 3:27 PM in reply to denisrobert
Um, every time she tried to talk he interrupted her. I don't think she was even given the chance to sidestep his questions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
December 18, 2009 3:33 PM in reply to Waltz
Exactly. She could barely get a single sentence out before Ratigan was interrupting again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AhTrini1
December 18, 2009 3:11 PM in reply to lpeggy
So, because she's a cancer survivor and congresswoman is no reason for her to not answer the question posed. While it was bad having him speak over her, we are glad when they do it to hypocrites a.k.a. republicans, so it's good when they do it to the Democrats too. Let them man up or in her case woman up to what a lousy bill this will be for the American public.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
December 18, 2009 3:37 PM in reply to AhTrini1
How can you say she refused to answer when every time she started to speak, Ratigan was jumping in to interrupt? You can't say she was being evasive; Ratigan didn't give her enough time for that, either. He wouldn't even give her enough time to finish a sentence. Seemed pretty obvious to me that he only wanted to hear her say, "You're right, Dylan, this is a crappy bill and it should not be passed," and anything she said that was not exactly that, he cut off.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Berkyjay
December 18, 2009 3:31 PM in reply to lpeggy
I guess some people don't like it when the truth is told.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ray reynolds
December 18, 2009 4:25 PM in reply to lpeggy
I don't buy it. She was ignoring the question. He spoke too loud but was right in what he was saying.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
December 18, 2009 11:15 AM
Didn't this twit have to apologize recently for acting like a clown on air? Make this strike 2.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
December 18, 2009 11:17 AM in reply to Dorn76
It's a bummer he has to let being a jerk get in the way of his very good points.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
December 18, 2009 11:22 AM in reply to Dorn76
"the stock market reflects reality".
Really?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
December 18, 2009 11:29 AM in reply to Dorn76
Actually his better point was that stocks go up when investors believe the companies will make more money in the future. That's exactly correct.
But seriously. That was a terrible terrible thing to do. Must be taking lessons from Hannity.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
December 18, 2009 12:02 PM in reply to ohyeathatsright
He is the exact opposite of what Hannity would do. Any Republican who goes on Fox is going to get softball questions and an easy interview.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
December 18, 2009 12:25 PM in reply to Darrius
The lesson was: "how to drown out liberals with your talking points"
Ratigan should be ashamed of stooping to their level. You can ask hard hitting questions without being a dick about it.
It wasn't a Republican/Democrat same side thing. I have hopes that MSNBC wouldn't treat their guests differently based on party lines as Fox does. They should treat them all better by being real journalists not 'pundalists'.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SkippyFlipjack
December 18, 2009 2:33 PM in reply to ohyeathatsright
She wanted to drown him out with her own talking points, but her mic wasn't loud enough.
Question: How could you write a bill with penalties for not buying insurance but no cost controls?
Answer: This bill changes healthcare from business-focused to consumer-focused...
The answer started off with nonsense, and he could tell it wasn't getting any better.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
December 18, 2009 4:07 PM in reply to SkippyFlipjack
So let her finish speaking and call her out on that afterwards.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
December 24, 2009 2:33 PM in reply to ohyeathatsright
Um, no. Any "guest" on a talk/news show knows their job is to filibuster the host, particularly if the host seems unfriendly to the guest's POV. Keep talking and talking, and run out the clock. They have to go to commercial break sometime, so just. Keep. Talking. And. Talking. So yeah, the host has to interrupt sometimes. Sorry if that offends people. Welcome to TV.
And y'all know damn well that if the guest had been a Republican, or someone who's not on the Obama train with both hands, both feet, and all their worldly possessions, you'd have been cheering Ratigan on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AhTrini1
December 18, 2009 3:15 PM in reply to ohyeathatsright
And, in this case, that's what he did. BS is BS spewing from the hypocrites or the Democrats; go Dylan. Apologize for the process not the point!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
December 18, 2009 3:42 PM in reply to ohyeathatsright
You can ask hard hitting questions without being a dick about it.
Indeed so. Rachel Maddow does it all the time. And she is always very careful not to step on what her guests are saying. She bends over backwards to treat even people she passionately disagrees with with courtesy and fairness. And it makes for a great exchange.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
December 18, 2009 4:03 PM in reply to slb
As does Jon Stewart. I value Stewart's interviews for this reason. Even Colbert treats his guests with more dignity and he's supposed to be a dick!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
terje
December 18, 2009 4:04 PM in reply to slb
Absolutely -- Rachel is proof that it is possible to do intelligent, point of view journalism without devolving into shouting - but actually challenging the guest's assertions in a clear and effective way. As a result, viewers actually end up with a better understanding of progressive viewpoints, and she advances the conversation. She is a model for how to do progressive journalism.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
terje
December 18, 2009 4:06 PM in reply to slb
Absolutely -- Rachel is proof that it is possible to do intelligent, point of view journalism without devolving into shouting - but actually challenging the guest's assertions in a clear and effective way. As a result, viewers actually end up with a better understanding of progressive viewpoints, and she advances the conversation. She is a model for how to do progressive journalism.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
December 18, 2009 5:49 PM in reply to terje
I don't miss a show of hers. She is the best there is.
Love Rachel
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
December 18, 2009 11:16 AM
"Go nuts"
This guys a kook.
Has he been drinking?
"Let me give you a brief education" LOL
She's laughing at the end.
"Debbie thank you so much" -- to a member of congress. "Debbie"
Epic fail. Worst interview ever!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RhodaA
December 18, 2009 11:16 AM
I saw this too. Ratigan was completely rude and disgusting. I emailed MSNBC immediately. I hope other will too. Had to see it to believe it!!!!!! Worse than the GOP.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shekissesfrogs
December 18, 2009 10:10 PM in reply to RhodaA
and you the equivalent of a teabagger in the Democratic party.
At least Dylan has passion and he's right.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mahatma Kane Jeeves
December 18, 2009 11:18 AM
This guy just lost all his credibility by acting like such a jerk.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
daveinnc
December 19, 2009 3:20 PM in reply to Mahatma Kane Jeeves
Ratigan is a rude asshole who seems to take his stage cues from Chris Mathews. My response here in the mountains is simple: don't watch him. If my satellite TV company would allow it I'd cancel MSNBC only but I can't.
Are there really folks out there who feel enlightened or perhaps emboldened by hearing him shout down a pretty damn smart guest? How is that possible?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Gopherit
December 18, 2009 11:20 AM
Ratigan gives me a headache. I hope MSNBC fires his stupid ass.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kristi
December 18, 2009 1:26 PM in reply to Gopherit
They are moving him to the afternoon to be lead in to Hardball. Now I know when I don't need to bother to watch.
I used to have MSNBC on all the time. I mute it or turn the channel during Dylan's show now. Frankly, MSNBC is frequently becoming unwatchable.
They are desperately trying to get me back into network TV or CNN or HGTV. It's starting to work.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
December 18, 2009 1:59 PM in reply to Kristi
I totally agree. I stopped watching MSNBC except for Keith and Rachel. I am at work when Ed is on.
I have been watching a lot of HGTV of late myself (LOL)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bill
December 18, 2009 11:20 AM
Note To Congresswoman Shultz: Soon, the headlines will read: "Democrats Herald Passage of Republican Health Care Reform Bill!' Really, what is the point of continuing this so-called 'Reform'. Take your licks. Do something rational for 51% of the vote and dont stick the American people with either having to pay for private sector health insurance or subsidizing private sector health insurance for those too poor to pay. Both ways, you've disgraced yourselves, harmed the taxpayers and failed to improve health care. STOP !
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
December 18, 2009 12:17 PM in reply to bill
= useful idiot for the GOP.
Yeah, you'll really show the GOP -- kill your own bill! And then again attempt another massive 2000 page overhaul in 15 years or so. Now THAT will really show the GOP and insurers! Brilliant strategy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Will work for shoes
December 18, 2009 11:21 AM
He's about as bad as Tweety. I've tried watching him but I can't deal with the attitude. And, oh yeah, MSNBC thinks giving Chuck and Savannah a morning show is going to work. Ugh.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Why oh why
December 18, 2009 11:22 AM
If Wasserman-Schultz is on TV, who is writing the next bill leading to war against Iran?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MrSimon
December 18, 2009 1:26 PM in reply to Why oh why
If you're posting on this message board, who's working the checkout line at Jiffy Lube?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bill
December 18, 2009 11:23 AM
Congress' Priority One: Bailout Corporations. Priority Two: Perpetual War and Increasing Defense spending. Priority Three: Pet Projects. Health Care Reform just became the victim of Priority One with health insurance industry gaining 40,000,000 mandated customers. "Oh, but there'll be a subsidy for those who cant afford to pay!", you may exclaim. "Yes. The taxpayers will be subsidizing the Health Insurance Industry's profits, CEO salaries, wasteful administrative costs and diverting billions of dollars that could be used delivery health care services. So, we are into Priority One - bailout the private health insurance industry." Sure, some folks will get a taxpayer subsidy , but the subsidy dollars will go mostly to the health insurance private sector. How do you feel about paying your tax money to private sector health insurers to subsidize their paperwork, profits and CEO bonuses? I dont like it; Wall Street does. Who are you voting for Ms Shultz?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
superking
December 18, 2009 11:23 AM
He's not really "yelling," that's pretty much exactly the tone of voice Ratigan uses on his show all the time. Even when he's just monologuing or introducing guests.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PASC
December 18, 2009 11:25 AM
I was sooooooooooooooooooooooo infuriated by this! He badgered and bullied her and, sadly, she lost her train of thought and couldn't come up with the obvious answer, which, of course, HE wasn't going to admit to.
His question to her was "Why are stocks for health insurance companies up if this is a good bill?" HE claimed the answer is because the bill favors the insurance companies. That's ONE possibility, but he ignores (and Wasserman was unable to come up with) the fact that the market may be up because traders don't think the bill WILL PASS AT ALL.
Not saying which is right, but there IS an alternative answer that is equally good as his, the arrogant blathermouth that he is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tintin
December 18, 2009 1:04 PM in reply to PASC
Good thought. Truth is, NO ONE knows why a stock moves the way it does when it does.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tom Dibble
December 18, 2009 1:29 PM in reply to PASC
Which was exactly why her point - you should ask a stock analyst on if you want theories as to why the stock market is moving in a particular direction - was 100% correct.
Also, a good stock analyst would NOT be looking at a single week-over-week number. Have those insurance company stocks been at low points recently? Wellpoint stock is still in the "slump" area of it's three-year curve, although it just recently hit its highest point this year. It hit a short-term low-point in October, which that quoted gain climbed out of. A stock analyst would also look at the relatively low volume of trading on Wellpoint and wonder why that is the case coupled with this "dramatic" rise.
Which might all seem beside the point. He was really crappy to his guest, to the point of there being no point of the guest even being there. But the "he has a good point though" crowd is missing where these two intersect: if he had had a good point (and didn't come up with it right on the spot that morning) he would have booked a stock analyst to plumb the details of the movement, *THEN* perhaps asked Congresswoman Schultz what she made of the analysis.
Reeks of either an incompetently-managed show (charitably) or a we'll-win-viewers-if-we're-as-obnoxious-as-Fox play (uncharitably).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tintin
December 18, 2009 2:18 PM in reply to Tom Dibble
Well said, Tom Dibble. And it's not beside the point. He asked for her opinion about the stocks and ASSUMED (making an ass out of himself) that he knew.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PASC
December 18, 2009 11:26 AM
I was sooooooooooooooooooooooo infuriated by this! He badgered and bullied her and, sadly, she lost her train of thought and couldn't come up with the obvious answer, which, of course, HE wasn't going to admit to.
His question to her was "Why are stocks for health insurance companies up if this is a good bill?" HE claimed the answer is because the bill favors the insurance companies. That's ONE possibility, but he ignores (and Wasserman was unable to come up with) the fact that the market may be up because traders don't think the bill WILL PASS AT ALL.
Not saying which is right, but there IS an alternative answer that is equally good as his, the arrogant blathermouth that he is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bill
December 18, 2009 11:27 AM
No one can imagine the Bush White House saying " We dont give a hoot in Hades what the conservatives think about it; we're going to do this anyway!" But that is exactly what the Obama White House and Congresswoman Shultz are saying "We're going to do this and dont give a hoot in Hades what the liberals think!" Well, Bush was smart enough to play to his 'base' and it got him re-elected. Obama is politically inept and his first term will be his last with nothing to show for it, but more war, a massive bailout, failed health reform and a ‘Jobs Summit’. Congresswoman Shultz, I hope you're more politically savvy, but, if the small portion of your apologia, is any indication of what you've got to tell voters, good luck in your next campaign. In spite of the abundant evident provided by the Tea Partyers, most voters are not stupid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pv2k
December 18, 2009 11:36 AM in reply to bill
You expect us to believe that after 8 years of Bush?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
December 18, 2009 11:43 AM in reply to pv2k
No kidding! Add the Bush voters to the "there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Bush and Gore" Naderite morons and you have a pretty healthy segment of the voting population.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
December 18, 2009 1:55 PM in reply to jenesq
At best 10-15% of the population really understands ideology and how our government works.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mr.E.
December 18, 2009 12:32 PM in reply to bill
Really. Really?! I suggest you check your history. The Bush-Rove-DeLay primary strategy was explicitly to govern by the majority of the majority, and to strong-arm Republicans to march in lock-step. Check how many bills during the entire Bush era actually came up for discussion. They were all crafted by committee without input from the Democrats.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
georgecs
December 18, 2009 11:27 AM
He's absolutely right. The government has mandated that 30 million people buy a product from a particular industry without providing an affordable option for doing so. Of course the insurance stocks are surging. This is a giant scam. the problem isn't that Ratigan is pissed and didn't make nice, the problem is that the people AREN'T pissed about this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
December 18, 2009 2:00 PM in reply to georgecs
They are and Democrats are going to pay this fall. And unfortunately, in our system, that means Republicans are going to be rewarded for being even bigger a-holes. There are no real political options in this country. We can choose from the corporate moderate conservatives - the Democrats - or the batshit crazy party, the Republicans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CCinNC
December 18, 2009 11:28 AM
He asked good questions -- questions I wish would be asked of every Democrat who's pushing this watered-down bill. But it would've been nice if he'd let her talk. So far I haven't heard anyone explain coherently why this bill is NOT going to line the insurance companies' pockets even more. I voted for Obama because I thought he would find a way to provide health care to all ... not force life insurance on all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
henk
December 18, 2009 12:17 PM in reply to CCinNC
Read this Greenwald post today. It explains alot about what's going on with people like Wasserman-Schlutz, Josh and the folks here who keep saying do something even if its wrong.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shepherd wong
December 18, 2009 1:38 PM in reply to henk
That's a very good point. Josh has been pretty consistent, flogging one piece after another that defend the legislation. Haven't seen a single "I feel abandoned" piece explaining the liberal case against the legislation. Fair and balanced TPM?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tintin
December 18, 2009 2:21 PM in reply to shepherd wong
Wrong again, Shep. Howsabout ole Mr. Reich for that old time, I'm abandoned religion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shepherd wong
December 18, 2009 4:10 PM in reply to Tintin
Nice try. The last post from Reich on this blog was back in November: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/11/robert_reich_asks_harry_reid.php
In the meantime, a steady stream of cover for the Obama and DLC crowd, including a comparison of Obama's struggle to give the insurance industry the biggest slice of corporate welfare the world has ever seen with...wait for it...Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation. We're rapidly approaching sycophancy territory and you seem to be at the front of the parade.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shepherd wong
December 18, 2009 4:15 PM in reply to shepherd wong
But since you brought him up:
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shepherd wong
December 18, 2009 4:37 PM in reply to shepherd wong
My apologies. I missed old Bob's recent piece (buried in the What Is In The Health Care Bill? column). No Appeals to History or other (over-) dramatic top line headlines.
Here's the good Dr. today making his best imitation of the liberal objection:
Bob, we hardly knew ya.Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rambler american
December 18, 2009 1:41 PM in reply to CCinNC
Thank you for differentiating between health care and health insurance. The two are not only NOT synonymous they are mutually exclusive.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fbacon2
December 18, 2009 11:29 AM
This segment was a disgrace. Not only would he not let her talk (apparently because he was incapable of accepting "I'm not sure" as a legitimate answer to a loaded question), but the segment was dominated by a former Reagan official who was flanking Ratigan all morning.
So you have a loud-mouthed, non-expert on health care talking over a member of Congress about a landmark piece of domestic legislation, only to be followed by a Republican shill spouting right-wing talking points.
What's the cap on the segment? A quick quip to the co-host about how Congress wouldn't enroll themselves in the public option. If Dylan weren't such an airhead, he would have realized that his Republican co-host this morning was just feeding him an anti-public option talking point right after he went off on a Democratic member of Congress for feeding him pro-health-care talking points. And in a segment bemoaning the loss of the public option, no less.
Just a disgrace.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
December 18, 2009 12:32 PM in reply to fbacon2
Absolutely correct in your assessment. This guy is trying to bolster his ratings. It's all a game with them. They have no interest in the truth. If they did, they would be telling people what they need to know as opposed to what they want them to know.
Fuck all of them
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Eric Jaffa
December 18, 2009 11:29 AM
Ideally, he would have let her explain what she thinks the important consumer elements of the bill are.
But he was making good points, too, and so the video isn't all bad.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ru4862
December 18, 2009 11:29 AM
Ratigan is usually on the right side. His questions for Rep. Wassermann has merit, but I can sense his frustration with wavering democrats on health care reform. but he did himself a disservice by not allowing the Wassermann to answer his questions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
December 18, 2009 12:34 PM in reply to ru4862
He could care less about health care. He is a right wing shill from the exact same district that the thugs thought they could strong arm into office and the democrat ended up winning.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CCinNC
December 18, 2009 11:29 AM
Oops, force HEALTH insurance on all, sorry ...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ru4862
December 18, 2009 11:31 AM
Ratigan is usually on the right side. His questions for Rep. Wassermann has merit, but I can sense his frustration with wavering democrats on health care reform. but he did himself a disservice by not allowing the Wassermann to answer his questions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Fightin' Dems Against Obama's Surrender
December 18, 2009 11:31 AM
I dunno man, I happen to love Dylan Ratigan. Screw decorum!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
whitesauce
December 18, 2009 11:34 AM
What is getting lost in the ranting here is that Dylan Ratigan made a good point and that Congresswoman Wasserman-Schultz was reading talking points. Was he rude? Yes, and hopefully he'll correct that. Was his question relevant? Yes. I understand that there are a lot of good things in the bill, but the fact remains: The government is going to mandate the purchase of health insurance without providing cost savings and the insurance companies are excited to see it happen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
December 18, 2009 3:52 PM in reply to whitesauce
Yes, he had good questions. It would have been nice if he had let her answer and make her own points instead of him constantly interrupting and trying to insist that she adopt his talking points.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
D.Ghirlandaio
December 18, 2009 11:36 AM
Why does she deserve any respect at all. Have you followed her?
Michael Froomkin has You might his recognize the last name.
Ratigan was great. Screw decorum!
Dmn right.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Frank Chow
December 18, 2009 11:36 AM
Since when did yelling at anyone in Congress become out of line? Isn't that what the Teabaggers got famous for? I welcome a person on teevee who actually goes after the smugness & arrogance that is our current corporate cronies in Congress.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
December 18, 2009 11:45 AM in reply to Frank Chow
When did yelling at people increase anyone's credibility? Don't the teabaggers look like deranged lunatics? Damn right they do! So why take a page from their book if you have an important point to make? Rachel Maddow makes great points all the time in a respectful, nonconfrontational way, so it can be done.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lpeggy
December 18, 2009 12:04 PM in reply to jenesq
You are so right. Everyone at MSNBC should take a lesson from Rachel Maddow. If she didn't yell and scream at the guy/idiot who was going to 'cure people of the Gay' or teabagger king Dick Armey then I'm sure that Dylan could have behaved like a professional in this segment.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Boidster
December 18, 2009 3:47 PM in reply to lpeggy
^^^ Truth ^^^
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pl3bian
December 18, 2009 12:23 PM in reply to Frank Chow
"Isn't that what the Teabaggers got famous for?"
Lie with dogs and you wake up with fleas.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Frank Chow
December 18, 2009 12:37 PM in reply to pl3bian
You see though he got all of our attention and now people will talk about it and maybe get to the meat of the matter. And those comparing Ratigan & Maddow; they serve two very different purposes. He had a good point and was mad at her for dodging the question, not a big deal.
He actually wasn't that bad, her smugness was just as repugnant.
If anything we should have learned this year, a little temper tantrum every now and then actually gets attention. May not be right, but that's how it works these days. Time to hold Congress accountable.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
December 18, 2009 6:07 PM in reply to Frank Chow
wrong.
she wasn't even given the opportunity to 'dodge' the loaded question.
she answered, "i don't know" to why those particular stocks are up those particular amounts over that particular time frame. how have those particular stocks performed over the last six months? over the last six years? how does the movement compare to other sectors or the rest of the market?
the questions about mandates and monopolies are important questions. but trying to frame them in terms of stock prices (let alone the movement over an arbitrary four week period) is just stupid. he should go back to CNBC with that sort of douchebaggery.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dasein
December 18, 2009 11:37 AM
He was channeling the anger and frustration of millions of Americans who are tired of seeing both parties legislate for the financial benefit of corporations and the top 10% rather than for the benefit of their constituents and American society as a whole.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JadeZ
December 18, 2009 11:38 AM
lol
of course the guy acted like a jerk but is he right?
sadly he is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
December 18, 2009 11:53 AM in reply to JadeZ
Yes he is right.
He should have done this with a Senator though.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
December 18, 2009 11:40 AM
Glenn Greenwald has a must-read article today -
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/12/18/corporatism/index.html
It's no longer Democrats vs Republicans it's Corporatists vs the People. It's time for an unholy alliance between progressives, Paulites and even Teabaggers.
Look how quickly Dick Armey swooped in to co-opt the Tea Party Movement to make them fit into the tired Republican vs Democrat frame. Look how the Obama Administration attacked Dr. Dean to try and muzzle and discredit him - "The Power" is worried that people are figuring it out.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
December 18, 2009 11:45 AM in reply to Walter Mitty
"It's no longer Democrats vs Republicans it's Corporatists vs the People. It's time for an unholy alliance between progressives, Paulites and even Teabaggers."
I have a distinct feeling that a group those on the left insist on referring to with a crude, juvenile sexual term are probably going to reject any overtures you make towards them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
de TOQUEville
December 18, 2009 12:01 PM in reply to masanf
Haven't you heard? The teabaggers are now proudly embracing the moniker. Which is hilarious.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Skybolt
December 18, 2009 11:48 AM in reply to Walter Mitty
Paulites and Teabaggers would like to make it harder to get healthcare, not easier. The idea of progressives allying with these wackos is ridiculous. There aren't just two sides.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
henk
December 18, 2009 12:31 PM in reply to Skybolt
Yup its best to dismiss this notion out of hand. Democrats don't need to work with any of these guys, we are corporatists now, we don't need no stinking working class schmucks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pl3bian
December 18, 2009 12:33 PM in reply to henk
Paultards don't want to work with you, me or anyone but other Paultards. They don't even like working with the GOP, how do you think they view the left?
I challenge you to endure five minutes of a Paultard explaining why civil rights was a bad idea, then come back and declare a desire to align yourself with them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
December 18, 2009 1:19 PM in reply to Skybolt
Working with Ron Paul supporters and teabaggers?! Wow! I always thought Greenwald was kind of a putz but that really takes the cake. You can't work with crazy people, and most Paul supporters and ALL teabaggers are completely irrational.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cawleybo
December 19, 2009 1:04 AM in reply to jenesq
Greenwald didn't say anything about working with Tea Baggers and Paulites. Why don't you try reading something before you express an opinion about it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Unmitigated Audacity
December 18, 2009 11:56 AM in reply to Walter Mitty
"It's no longer Democrats vs Republicans it's Corporatists vs the People." Succinct and true.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
whitesauce
December 18, 2009 12:13 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
The alliance between progressives and Paulites was one of the underreported stories of the last election. You're right. There's an opportunity to work together on things we might agree on and go from there. It doesn't have to be unholy; We have to stick to our own principles. Party politics is over because there's only one working party right now and we can't even get them to promote the will of the people against the will of the corporations.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DB55
December 18, 2009 1:05 PM in reply to whitesauce
This is a joke. The Paulites want NO government role in health care at all, no social safety net, no environmental regulations, etc. etc. These are progressives' allies?
You're certainly entitled. And I have to give Libertarians credit for at least being ideologically consistent - their opposition to big government extends to supporting gay rights, legalizing drugs, etc. But they are the ultimate worshippers of the capitalist market, and don't give a damn about who it destroys.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pl3bian
December 18, 2009 1:09 PM in reply to DB55
"And I have to give Libertarians credit for at least being ideologically consistent - their opposition to big government extends to supporting gay rights, legalizing drugs, etc"
You're kinder than I am. I refuse to give them credit for sticking to bad ideas.
Bunch of selfish, privileged right wingers who want to smoke pot without going to jail.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
whitesauce
December 18, 2009 2:16 PM in reply to DB55
The idea is not to agree with Libertarians about health care. Neither am I suggesting that we form some new party. There are a number of progressives who have been concerned with extent of government power or the reach of the Federal Reserve. There's an area where we have common interests, regardless of where we go from there. I'm not interested in ripping apart the government, but it's time to reset the current climate. If we all continue to be locked down in ideology, the politicians will continue on their current path. If we the people demonstrate that we can work together across ideologies, it hurts party politics. Isn't that really the goal?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pl3bian
December 18, 2009 3:18 PM in reply to whitesauce
I extend to you the same challenge I did the other person who wanted to approach the Libertarians:
Endure five minutes of them explaining why the free market is a cure for racism.
Try it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pl3bian
December 18, 2009 12:26 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
"It's time for an unholy alliance between progressives, Paulites and even Teabaggers."
Hell no.
Not just no.
Hell. No.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SkippyFlipjack
December 18, 2009 11:43 AM
I think Ratigan was perfectly justified in the way he ran the interview. I just watched it a couple times, and the back-and-forth boiled down to this:
him: "Look at the insurance stocks... they're up because the government not going to reform the monopoly.. why is that a good thing for america?"
her: "life in america for insurance companies will be different"
him: "why are stocks up?"
her: "we are going to shift system from business to consumer-focused"
him: "how is it consumer focused to force people to buy insurance?"
her: "you won't let me respond"
him: "why are stocks up?"
her: "i'm not an analyst"
him: "stocks go up because analysts think they'll make more money"
her: "most significant reform in history and..."
him: "enough with the talking points"
he gave her a chance to respond and she wanted to recite tangential talking points. "why are stocks up" isn't a question she can answer without speculation (although if she was Ari Fleischer she'd have said they are going up because the insurance companies are going to see reduced profits) so I wish he'd focused entirely on mandates, with the stock prices as one piece of evidence. still, it's great that someone is holding congresspeople to the fire and trying to get answers about some of the absurd policy that's shaping up in these bills.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jenesq
December 18, 2009 11:48 AM in reply to SkippyFlipjack
Stock prices do not always reflect reality. More often, they reflect perception, which is not the greatest indicator of reality. Dot com stocks seemed like a good idea once upon a time, if you recall. As did Enron.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
December 18, 2009 11:56 AM in reply to jenesq
I have a feeling you don't really follow the stock market on a daily basis.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SkippyFlipjack
December 18, 2009 2:30 PM in reply to jenesq
I met Thomas Friedman's stockbroker at a party once and he said that Friedman calls him multiple times a day -- not really to track his holdings but because he thinks the stock market is an accurate predictor of world events. It's not so much an indicator of what *will* happen but what the collective mind of people who get paid to think about such things *think* will happen. That's why it's instructive here -- we don't know what the final bill will look like but the market is betting that it'll look really nice for insurance companies. That's not a good sign for everyone else (unless you own insurance industry stock.) (That said, it was a good question for a market analyst, not a congressional rep; it's like asking someone "Why don't people like you?")
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tintin
December 18, 2009 12:21 PM in reply to SkippyFlipjack
Skippy...you are fuckin' out of your mind.
He gave her a chance to respond? Bullshit.
She was right--he asked her a "stock question." She's not a stock analyst. Frankly, Ratigan doesn't know why the stocks went up because NO ONE really knows. Stocks do all kinds of things that don't make sense.
This guy out Matthewed Matthews. A complete abdication of his responsibility as a journalist.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Armageddon T. Thunderbird
December 18, 2009 1:49 PM in reply to Tintin
Skippy's point was - she had no intention of addressing the question. Progressive critics have been asking....where is the cost control? If you force people to buy insurance and there is no cost control - then that is a sell-out to the insurance companies. ...and the stock prices demonstrate that.
And what have the answers been?....the same non-answers. If she was able to detail-out how the bill controls costs he would have been quiet and let her talk. But she was looking for a chance to just repeat the same non-answers that Axlerod and everybody else have been spouting so he cut her off.
It may not have been polite...but how much more non-answers to cost control do we have to listen to?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tintin
December 18, 2009 2:29 PM in reply to Armageddon T. Thunderbird
Well then, he could have asked, "How do you propose to control costs"...and then let her answer. And the picked apart her answer. I don't think she got out a sentence.
Then he brought up the tripe about the stock prices, which wasn't a question and his point wasn't even true. It was deceptive itself.
All that happened here was Ratigan shouted at her and a lot of "progressives" got their rocks off.
But, in terms of HEALTH CARE, nothing happened.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SkippyFlipjack
December 18, 2009 2:44 PM in reply to Tintin
I thought I said that in my post above but maybe wasn't clear. I agree with you that he didn't do a good job with pressing her on the real question; he came up with a "gotcha" that he thought was clever but there was no good way for her to answer it.
So even though he didn't hammer her with the question I would have preferred -- as you say, "how will you control costs" -- it was clear she didn't have interest in answering that question ("consumer-focused" my ass) so I was glad he hammered her with something. I just feel our reps aren't being forced to answer the tough questions about the scary direction the legislation seems to be taking (in terms of mandates v. cost controls) that I'll excuse some incivility from anyone willing to ask those questions.
I agree too that the stock market is more complex than he wants it to be but I don't doubt that the market, which is watching these reform negotiations, thinks insurance companies are going to make out very well at the end.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clavis
December 18, 2009 11:44 AM
Corporations do what they think will make them money. Obviously, somebody put this Ratigan guy on MSNBC because they thought, "Well, ranting yelling loudmouths get ratings." It would never have occurred to them to get someone knowledgable or intelligent. No, apoplectic is good enough.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
December 18, 2009 12:41 PM in reply to Clavis
Bingo!!! It's all about ratings. Ratigan doesn't give a rats ass about health care. He rants every day - ranting and ranting and says nothing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
EJA
December 18, 2009 11:47 AM
Yeah, let's jump all over Wasserman-Schultz's ass. She's the problem.
I'll be impressed when someone speaks to Lieberman or Nelson like this.
Ratigan is an asshole and a bully. He's picking on the wrong person.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
December 18, 2009 11:48 AM
"Ratigan guy on MSNBC because they thought, 'Well, ranting yelling loudmouths get ratings'. "
Actually, given the piss poor ratings of Olbermann and Schulz (Maddow too, but she isn't really like them), it is obvious ranting loudmouths don't get ratings on MSNBC.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Scarce
December 18, 2009 11:52 AM in reply to masanf
Compare MSNBC's evening ratings to CNN and then see what piss poor ratings really look like.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clavis
December 18, 2009 12:32 PM in reply to masanf
Who was talking to you? You will speak when spoken to.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Armageddon T. Thunderbird
December 18, 2009 1:53 PM in reply to masanf
Fox ratings are good for the same reason that "The National Enquirer" is America's #1 daily.
Just don't go there for real news and you'll be fine.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Scarce
December 18, 2009 11:51 AM
That's his schtick. The only difference this time was he was doing it to one of ours instead of one of the truly bad guys, or gals, like Marsha Blackburn or Betsy McCaughey.
People getting upset all of a sudden at Dylan Ratigan for being Dylan Ratigan just haven't been paying attention.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Overreach THIS!
December 18, 2009 11:54 AM
At 1:56, she says "I love you." LOL!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
artgurrl
December 18, 2009 12:01 PM
This is really too bad. I really like Dylan Ratigan. He let his emotions get the best of him. I realize emotions are running high on this issue but that's no excuse for his behavior. Although the fundamentals of his argument are valid, there were a few points that he failed on. For one he claimed that the stock market reflects reality. I think he should know better than claiming this considering what we just went through in the last 8 years. Second, Wasserman Schultz has a point in that she is not a stock analyst and it really is unfortunate that Ratigan didn't let her answer those questions. He really needs to apologize for his behavior, if not to the Congresswoman then to his audience for not having a legitimate interview rather than an emotional tirade on a soap box. Save that for some kind of special commentary rather than an interview. I would have really liked to hear what Wasserman Schultz had to say. She's one of the few good leaders in D.C today.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tintin
December 18, 2009 12:26 PM in reply to artgurrl
Yes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
December 18, 2009 12:03 PM
Ratigan's question is legitimate, but his demeanor serves no useful purpose in finding an answer to that question.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Juble
December 18, 2009 12:06 PM
Gee Ratigan was spot on.How the heck is it consumer driven HCR when I am being forced to buy from private for profit health Insurance.
Now all these sellot Dem pol are somehow trying to convince Americans that life is going to be better now that you have to pay Insurance CO CEO 4-7% of your salary.
Nice work if you can get it.
The Dem leadership & WH bungled a call for fundamental change,instead they are trying to preserve the old order of giving the spoils to their big campaign donors cloaked in "fundamental change".Yeah!fundamental cuz you are now forcing ordinary Americans to reward Insurance Co for crap.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Armageddon T. Thunderbird
December 18, 2009 2:01 PM in reply to Juble
I think you have it. Additionally - these are near monopolies. So this is not about Capitalism....the insurance companies and their Republican benefactors hate Capitalism. Their problem is that the answer to Ratigan's question about competition is to let insurance companies sell you insurance from the third-world south where there is no regulation. So what happens is that you will be able to buy meaningless health insurance from some southern backwater state with no rules in order to meet your federal obligation to be insured. But God forbid you get sick or need services....and you will find that you need a lawyer to get them to pay for a prescription.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
December 18, 2009 4:03 PM in reply to Juble
Gee Ratigan was spot on.How the heck is it consumer driven HCR when I am being forced to buy from private for profit health Insurance.
Well, he didn't give her a chance to answer that question, did he?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Vavasseur
December 18, 2009 12:07 PM
I don't feel sorry for her in the least. She was just spouting a talking point designed to remove some of the stink from the steaming pile which is the Senate HCR proposal.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DRK
December 18, 2009 12:08 PM
His question was a legitimate one. But I no longer have any truck with these blowhards who invite guests onto their shows to answer questions and then yell over their answers. One reason this country is in such bad shape is that there is no longer any forum for civil discourse.
Ridiculous and sickening.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tintin
December 18, 2009 12:25 PM in reply to DRK
Yes and double yes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
December 18, 2009 12:10 PM
I don't think this was so bad. It's just like liberals to get their nose out of joint on style when somebody points out the King has no clothes instead of dealing with the issue. He was a bit rude, but it is better than playing the game of acting like what he was saying is in any way outweighed by what little good the healthcare bills would do. I think it is more rude of Democrats like her to try and saddle the people with their rotten corporate welfare bill and tell us it's for our own good.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tintin
December 18, 2009 12:35 PM in reply to oleeb
This has nothing to do with the health care bill. If he wants to interview SOMEONE ELSE and not just talk, then he needs to let her talk. This isn't style; this is what an interview is. If he wants to take apart what she says, then he has to let her say something. But he didn't. So an opportunity to have an enlightening interview was completely lost, totally due to him.
If you want someone to simply shout at Congress, well you ain't going to get many Congressfolk going on shows like this.
His point about the stock market were utterly FALSE as others have pointed out. Stocks go up for all kinds of "reasons," most of which are unfathomable. The fluctuations he pointed to were completely within the norm. And many times, stocks go down when a company experiences "good news" and down when it experiences "bad news." That's simply a fact. If Ratigan doesn't know this, then he has no business as an investment reporter. Otherwise, he's nothing more than a liar.
Asking her to answer a question HE can't LEGITIMATELY answer is nonsense, made worse by his insufferable arrogance. Lying, arrogant asshole pretending to be a newsman.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
December 18, 2009 1:11 PM in reply to Tintin
In other words, you just disagree with him and therefore you are making the argument you are making. It is obvious to any nitwit that the jumps in the stock prices of insurance companies with each new milestone favorable to the insurance companies is directly related to the healthcare reform legislation. Yes, he was rude, but that beats just being another compliant, vapid news interview that doesn't ask any real questions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tintin
December 18, 2009 1:22 PM in reply to oleeb
"It is obvious to any nitwit that the jumps in the stock prices of insurance companies with each new milestone favorable to the insurance companies is directly related to the healthcare reform legislation."
Hahaha. This just shows you know nothing about the stock market. If people could know what you think they know, they'd all be very, very wealthy. The stock market moves against the surest bets all the time. That's just a fact. Sure, you can speculate all you want, and many explanations sound plausible. But then the stock moves against you...and your plausible reasons turn to ash.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Armageddon T. Thunderbird
December 18, 2009 2:09 PM in reply to Tintin
Well why don't you tell us what the cost-containment aspects of this legislation will be?
Cost-containment for mandatory insurance is the question.
There seems to be NONE....and the stocks are going UP UP UP.
Now you say that there is no relation.
Well I'm sorry but it seems like it is the most plausible reason especially since champions of the Senate bill have yet to describe how the bill contains costs.
So enlighten us please....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tintin
December 18, 2009 2:38 PM in reply to Armageddon T. Thunderbird
The question about cost containment is a legitimate one and he should have let her answer instead of just yelling at her.
The question about the stock prices was ridiculous.
If you know nothing about the stock market, then it seems plausible, but isn't particularly. For one thing, the ENTIRE stock market has been in a record bull since March. For another, health care stocks are traditionally good bets even in recessions because people are always getting sick. They often outperform the market for this reason. Third, if you look at Wellpoint, for example, its stock is up, but not in a terribly significant way. I could find you plenty of non-health care stocks that have done as well or better.
Read up and you'll find other plausible reasons for the stock action.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
thepeoplechoose
December 18, 2009 12:10 PM
No matter how one sided this was somebody needs to hold the feet of our lawmakers to the fire. Can you imagine if any number of our congressional leadership were to appear and be pushed to answer such obvious questions? Ratigan isn't wrong to demand some accountability. Debbie Schultz is probably one of the hardest working of our lawmakers and I suspect would really like to be able to give Americans a far better product. But in the end what has occurred is indefensible and all of our elected officials are responsible. No exception.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Armageddon T. Thunderbird
December 18, 2009 2:15 PM in reply to thepeoplechoose
Exactly right. She should have been prepared to answer the cost containment question and instead she just launched right into the standard bullcrap that we have been hearing. You can smell it after the first two sentences.
This is much too important to take lightly and from what we have seen....the Democrats in congress have been selling-out the American people who want a public option or expanded medicare. The Republicans and insurance shills have made NO COMPROMISES AT ALL.
So the time for courtesy is over. Just ask Al Franken.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
December 18, 2009 4:09 PM in reply to Armageddon T. Thunderbird
Actually, Al Franken tends to be very courteous. He is just also quite frank. One thing does not have to exclude the other.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
richard f
December 18, 2009 12:13 PM
What a fuckin jerk
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
flavius
December 18, 2009 12:15 PM
Ratigan is a stupid loud mouthed bully who did NOT make a good point.
He demanded her to agree that the recent increase in health insurance shares shows that the "industry" knows that HCR will be good for those companies and that therefore one can conclude it will be bad for the customers
1.As she correctly said,she's not a security analyst. It would be just as irresponsible for her to pretend to know why stock prices change as for her to pretend she knows how to diagnose cancer.
2.He for his part incorrectly said the price rise shows the "industry" knows HCR will be good for those health shares. .The "industry" isn't buying shares, fund managers are.
3.The price increase about which he ranted was not extreme it was well within the normal monthly fluctuations which can occur without any outside event being responsible..
4.Even if the increase in price had proved that HCR was good for these insurance companies that does not mean it would be bad for their customers. It's not a zero sum game.
She was not trying to evade his question. He was trying to evade allowing her to answer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tintin
December 18, 2009 12:24 PM in reply to flavius
Absolutely. The guy is a complete asshole.
I didn't feel sorry for her. She handled herself extremely well. And she gave it back to him.
The power in these situations is always with the host, who can cut off and end the segment whenever he wants. Same thing with Matthews, though Ratigan was 1000x worse.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
whitesauce
December 18, 2009 12:17 PM
I don't understand the outrage regarding the tone that Ratigan displayed in the interview. I would rather have someone err in tone than in content. He erred in tone but he was right. Someone please tell me why his rudeness should trump the point he's making.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
December 18, 2009 12:25 PM in reply to whitesauce
"He erred in tone but he was right."
How can an interviewer be "right". I thought he was supposed to ask questions. Perhaps that's where you go astray. Inviting someone on to tell her something is a diatribe not an interview.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
whitesauce
December 18, 2009 2:24 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
Since when are "interviewers" restricted from having opinions or from asking pointed questions? He asked a legitimate question that she wanted to answer with talking points and he didn't accept it. There are no rules here. People want more from the politicians than talking points whether they're Republicans or Democrats. Once again, I'm not defending his tone, but I'm not going to punish him either.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
December 18, 2009 4:26 PM in reply to whitesauce
She wasn't allowed to answer with anything at all -- Ratigan seemed not to want answers, he just wanted an opportunity to rant.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
flavius
December 18, 2009 1:56 PM in reply to whitesauce
Because the point he was making was wrong.
The increase over the last couple of weeks in the market price of some insurance company shares does not, repeat not, reflect what industry insiders think about their future profits under HCR. To whatever extent they reflect an expectation about the future its the analysts expectation of what may happen to those shares in the next couple of months.And that is not based upon the expected benefit,if any, to those companies from HRC .
With respect, that's not the way the market works. Major investors are completely indifferent to any forecast of future benefits to a company of some some future event. They only care about the company's EPS in the next three months. And they're right. The future is too uncertain and too distant. So almost all they care about is the next quarter's EPS.
If,say, Boeing announces a major contract for its Dreamliner but its quarterly EPS goes down, the share price will drop.
The one exception to this focus on the next quarter eps is the greater fool theory. Some analysts who were recommending during the last 30 days that major investors buy were doing so , because they expect those major investors could flip them at a profit in the next few weeks when the small odd lot investors foolishly buy on the passage of HRC
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
whitesauce
December 18, 2009 2:45 PM in reply to flavius
There are many reasons that stocks fluctuate. Your assertion that earnings-per-share are a sole determinant is questionable. I'm not a big fan of Mr. Ratigan -- and I can't believe I'm defending him -- but he has credentials that allow him to make this argument. He and others obviously believe that the market is affected by Congressional policies. You're certainly allowed to disagree, but your hubris on this issue suggests that you are more interested in ratifying your opinion.
I like Congresswoman Schultz; I just didn't think she was willing to have a discussion that went beyond talking points. We should all expect better.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
flavius
December 18, 2009 8:35 PM in reply to whitesauce
Sure there are lots of things that affect stock prices: rumors, scandals what will you. All the more reason that you can't draw the conclusion from the four week change in market price of a couple of health-insurers that this reflects the health-insurance industry's evaluation of the long term effects of HCR.
It's possible that the health- care industry has reached that conclusion. No significant investor, learning that, however. would pay the least attention. Once those hypothetical potential benefits are discounted for time value of money and probability of realization they would not justify diverting funds from other less uncertain opportunities. Investors don't lack opportunities to invest .
I will certainly grant that some smart money might react to the information by investing in health care stocks not, however, as a sensible economic choice but as a flyer. Relying on clueless investors,like Ratican, to let that news affect their investmentment decisions.
So certainly some fund managers might take a quick trip, buying now ,to flip when the lambs marched to slaughter on the news that the bill had passed. Known as
.Tothat limited extent Ratigan might have accidentally been right.But that hardly constituted a basis for his demand that the Congresswoman acknowledge she agreed that this tenuous possible relationship was evidence of anything that legislators should take into account.
She was not dodging his question.The only intellectually respectable response would have been :"Who knows? Be my guest"
Some comments rely on the fact that this is Ratican's field. Lord help us. No wonder we have market bubbles.
What's really going on here is that many of the commentators are so dismayed that the HCR will not embody , say, single payer (OBTW so am I )that they look for any possible reason to attack any legislator who depends the current bill Even the blathering of a rude incompetent like Dylan.What a jerk!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pl3bian
December 18, 2009 12:19 PM
Angertainment for the left.
I am not impressed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
December 18, 2009 12:20 PM
You know what would have been great, with the talks in Copenhagen and all, Ratigan could have also said that clean energy green stocks are pretty much flat or down, because Obama has made zero efforts to really change our energy independence.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
December 18, 2009 12:21 PM
These guys always are always yelling at women and people over the camera, they are never yelling men who are sitting at the table with them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
December 18, 2009 4:33 PM in reply to Darrius
Good point. That might be partly because the delay in the audio feed gives them a better opportunity to do it. But I think you're right that it's a whole lot easier to attack someone who is remote from you that someone who is within striking distance.
"Women and people"? Uh--women are people too, you know! ;-)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
darosenthal
December 18, 2009 12:22 PM
On health care there are no alliances for progressives to make. We have to take the best deal we can get, and we might have to sacrifice some of the credits we've nabbed over the years (regulation, abortion).
Here's how it works: Pass a bad bill. Later, the bill is revisited because people see how it doesn't quite work. Will we scrap the bill? No. We don't get rid of social welfare programs with problems--we try to solve the problems. In another 10 years we'll have something like the Baucus bill, or (if we're lucky) something like the House bill. In 25 years, maybe a Swiss or Dutch single-payer private system. That's called winning the war.
To paraphrase a glib idiot, you don't go to war in the Senate you want or with the rules you want. This is the system we have, and the Obama administration will do whatever it takes to get a bill, and they (insurance industry and Republicans) know it.
Social Security and Medicare created generations of people who trusted Democrats on domestic issues, and in bad economic times the residue of that trust still lingers. The Republicans will NEVER make a deal with Democrats which gives a Democratic president and Congress the credit for major reform.
Life and liberty are intertwined, because you aren't free when you're dead. In that sense, health care reform is about a fundamental right, and on such questions we have only ever had incremental progress against the stiffest resistance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tintin
December 18, 2009 12:37 PM in reply to darosenthal
Absolutely. You only have to look at SS, which was originally but a puny ghost of its current self.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
biglith
December 18, 2009 1:17 PM in reply to darosenthal
Corporate interests are much stronger than when Social Security were passed and subsequently revised. The issue is not whether private insurance regulated and subsidized by the government can work. The issue is whether private health insurance should be allowed to exist. Progressive believe there is no real alternative to a single payer system. If you believe that what you describe can work then I think you are deluding yourself.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ru4862
December 18, 2009 12:26 PM
People are missing the point. Ratigan's questions have serious merits. Unfortunately, for the congresswoman(who l like) evaded the questions. Seriously. How can any democrat possibly defend a bill so bad it could of been written by the republicans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tintin
December 18, 2009 12:39 PM in reply to ru4862
His question about the stock prices had NO merit. It was idiotic. His question about the giveaway to insurance companies had merit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dudeguy
December 18, 2009 12:51 PM in reply to ru4862
Evading the question? She wasn't allowed to finish a sentence!
You give the person time to make a point, and then say, "You're evading. Answer my question." You can't anticipate the evasion before it occurs.
Russert was good at this. Matthews is, when he's not all nutsoid. Ratigan is just a jerk, whether he was right in content or not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tintin
December 18, 2009 12:55 PM in reply to ru4862
Oh really. Please name for me all those health care bills (especially ones just like this) that the Republicans wrote between 1994 and 2006. And please don't come back until you've answered the question.
"How can any democrat possibly defend a bill so bad it could of been written by the republicans."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
RabidRabbit
December 18, 2009 1:35 PM in reply to Tintin
The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (otherwise known as Medicare Part D) which which gave perscription drugs to seniors but made it illegal for the government to try to negotiate drug prices with drug companies. Essentially a huge giveaway to drug companies. So yes, this bill is just like something the Republicans would have written.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rknollmueller
December 18, 2009 12:28 PM
MSNBC has a screamer in the morning (Ratigan) and in the evening (Matthews) and both are rude, pompus and self serving. That's when I click off the channel. What does MSNBC not understand when so many hosts talk over their guests. Witness Scarbourgh every morning; he yells less but is just as brutish and rude. It is amazing anyone agrees to be a guest on these shows. This morning the Congresswoman was patient and mature despite being treated crudely and inappropriately and saying the best line,"be your own guest". May her tribe increase!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
December 18, 2009 12:34 PM
Frustration, disappointment = understandable
Taking it out on people who aren't responsible for the stonewalling and obstructionism? Childish.
I wonder if MLK Jr. and other civil rights leaders gave up and pouted and lashed out when they had setback after setback? Those folks were getting beaten with clubs and attacked by dogs, and yet weren't prone to defeatism.
All progress in this country didn't come over night. It's more a battle for every inch of turf, step by step, over many years.
Time to respond to adversity with some composure, resolve and maturity. Fight for all we can now, and come back next year for a separate PO bill. We could even make a crusade out of the PO, and use it to bludgeon people like Lieberman in 2012.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tintin
December 18, 2009 12:37 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
OF COURSE!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
December 18, 2009 12:42 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
I agree
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
thomas c
December 18, 2009 12:37 PM
I can't believe the condescending attitude of so many of the commenters. Y'all are getting the vapors over a TV inquisitor insisting that a congressperson answer a simple question, a reaction worthy of the most jaded Village Insider.
Wasserman blew it. All she had to do was admit that this bill is a huge giveaway to the insurance companies but argue that it is the political price of expanding coverage. Instead she tried to argue - absurdly - that the insurance companies were about to enter a brave new world of genuine healthcare reform. Rattigan's question was a fair one, and Wasserman should have answered it rather than attempting to blow smoke.
To all of you who are so offended that an interviewer might actually insist that a congressperson answer a question, do any of you believe that the rapidly increasing stock prices of the insurance companies do not fairly reflect the boon to insurers resulting from the mandates and the complete failure of this bill to impose any measure of cost constraints on the system?
Wasserman should have conceded the obvious (i.e., that mandating and subsidizing the purchase of private health insurance by 30+ plus million people is a huge benefit to insurance companies) and then proceeded to explain her understanding of political realities. She chose instead to first evade the question and then, when pressed by Rattigan, insist that insurance companies were being dragged reluctantly into this deal.
I can understand why Rattigan's hyperventilating style may make some uncomfortable (too Beck-like) but I think our press should start erring on the side of sharp questioning of our political leaders.
Good for Rattigan. As for Debbie, I love her but she was off her game today.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clavis
December 18, 2009 12:42 PM in reply to thomas c
Don't fall into the trap of deciding for other people what they were complaining about. You know darned well that progressives are all for afflicting the comfortable and all that. I don't think anybody here has a problem with being direct and demanding of a politician/guest. I get the impression that most of the complaints were about his style. Maybe that's a minor point compared to the important business of practicing journalism, but maybe the criticism is that his style overwhelming and undermined his efforts, noble though they might have been.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jamieh
December 18, 2009 12:44 PM in reply to thomas c
He's right on. And she was just babbling talking points and not addressing a GREAT question. Mandated insurance without anti-monopolistic market price curbs is just stupid. That the country is ungovernable because the Republikants just kill any opportunity for good orderly direction is largely behind it. But the Dems should be shouting about that, and not disagreeing with smart analysis. There will be a plethora of unforeseen consequences from this travesty, and while it may be better in the aggregate, in some ways it sucks. And it's a triumph for teh stupid that he can't point that out. Good for him to be so aggressive. He's right, and he cut through the bull.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tintin
December 18, 2009 12:48 PM in reply to jamieh
"... and while it may be better in the aggregate, in some ways it sucks." Wow. Sounds like 99% of all bills ever passed. See? Even you can't believe you're own bullshit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clavis
December 18, 2009 12:44 PM in reply to thomas c
Don't fall into the trap of deciding for other people what they were complaining about. You know darned well that progressives are all for afflicting the comfortable and all that. I don't think anybody here has a problem with being direct and demanding of a politician/guest. I get the impression that most of the complaints were about his style. Maybe that's a minor point compared to the important business of practicing journalism, but maybe the criticism is that his style overwhelming and undermined his efforts, noble though they might have been.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tintin
December 18, 2009 12:49 PM in reply to Clavis
How about the fact that she wasn't able to get out a full sentence?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tintin
December 18, 2009 12:46 PM in reply to thomas c
"...do any of you believe that the rapidly increasing stock prices of the insurance companies do not fairly reflect the boon to insurers resulting from the mandates and the complete failure of this bill to impose any measure of cost constraints on the system?"
If you've ever invested in a stock and had your own money at stake--and I mean individual stocks, not funds--you'll know that stocks go up and down all the time and for no clear reason. Good news brings drops in the price. Bad news brings rises. Ratigan, actually, should know this because this is his field.
Unfortunately, he's of the ilk of stock yakkers who takes his job to be an expert and to know. He can't go on the air and say, "Why did the market go up today? Beats me!" No one would watch him. So he repeats the mumbo-jumbo of half truths that pass for real investment knowledge. Any real stock picker is EXTREMELY humble in the face of the market action.
Wasserman, as the transcript will show, didn't argue anything. She couldn't get out one sentence. It was a bullshit non-interview.
Moreover, if you think ANY politician is going to come on TV and say she's for "giving away" taxpayer dollars to greedy insurance companies, you're a moron.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tbhull
December 18, 2009 12:41 PM
congress people voting for this deserve no respect. they deserve a tar and feathering and a permanent exit from DC.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tropicgirl
December 18, 2009 12:50 PM
I also saw the exchange and, being from the home state of Wasserman, let me tell you that many progressives are totally fed up with her down here. There have been MANY protests outside her offices. She is a little war-troll that speaks NOTHING but TALKING POINTS. Ever. THATS ALL SHE EVER DOES, AND LOVES THE PUBLICITY. There was recently a move to remove her by progressives because of her relentless stance on war against Muslims, using young American men and women.
Wasserman is also A MEDIA TROLL. She is the one who thought she was going to cozy herself up to the powers that be by using the Morning Meeting to spew her talking points. She really doesn't care what is in the bill, only that Democrats succeed. Like many Democrats, she wants to move up in the party and will carry water, bent over, as much as she can. Slurping and drooling as she speaks, she exemplifies EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING that is disgusting about the current Democratic party. We know her well down here and she mostly appeals to the Zionist war crowd. (Mostly the diapered, drooling white old folks).
And she is DEFINITELY RESPONSIBLE FOR the same obstructionism that the Democratic party has shown against real financial reform, public option, anti-war measures, and so on. A real blue doggie.
Some of you Democrats better wake up a little. The Democratic Party is killing the middle class and you guys can't do anything else but circle around a fool and call it party loyalty, or whatever. You basically deserve the kind of leaders you keep electing. Like it? Keep voting for these lobby-friendly folks. She's the poster-child.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tintin
December 18, 2009 1:01 PM in reply to tropicgirl
"Some of you Democrats better wake up a little." Hahaha. Wake me up when progressives are able to elect anyone and get anything done. We've got Saunders, who got a few cows to vote for him. Grayson lives in the safest of districts, I'm told. Kucinich the same.
But as soon as they venture onto the national stage, they melt like wax on a hot stove. Did Kucinich get even .5%? And as I recall, those powerful and effective progressives brought us Joe Lieberman! Progressives are nothing more than the punchline to a joke everyone's forgotten.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clavis
December 18, 2009 1:11 PM in reply to Tintin
Hold your tongue and speak only when spoken to.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DB55
December 18, 2009 1:12 PM in reply to tropicgirl
"little war troll" ... "slurping and drooling" ... "Zionist war crowd (mostly the diapered, drooling white old folks)"
Gee, Tropic Girl, is it possible you have it out for people of a particular religious/ethnic persuasion? Just askin'
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
spider
December 18, 2009 7:59 PM in reply to tropicgirl
Excuse me? Drooling white folks? You’re not only racist but an ignorant bigot that’s very lucky you’re behind your monitor as apposed to in front of me. You just set us back light years and continue your post as if this is your normal MO. WTF over? I’m done with this BS.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Grackle
December 18, 2009 12:50 PM
He has a very good point, but you can hold someone's feet to the fire without being such an a@@. His tactic didn't further the debate at all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jackboy66
December 18, 2009 12:53 PM
Wow! This guy is WAY out of line. No wonder MSNBC's daytime ratings are crashing. Very sad.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Emperor
December 18, 2009 12:53 PM
The sad thing is that he can watch the replay and realize he created needless waste of time and energy. Show some kindness, Dylan. If he (Dylan) were correct, the audience would get to see and hear the logic. If not, others might get to offer their views. As it turned out, nobody heard anything over the din, and the audience was the worse off for it.
I know he regrets what he said and how he said it. Now, he should apologize to her on screen, and move on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AlphaLiberal
December 18, 2009 12:55 PM
Wow. Ratigan really lost it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
thomas c
December 18, 2009 12:59 PM
"...If you've ever invested in a stock and had your own money at stake--and I mean individual stocks, not funds--you'll know that stocks go up and down all the time and for no clear reason. Good news brings drops in the price. Bad news brings rises. Ratigan, actually, should know this because this is his field."
Rattigan apparently knows this, and also knows something you apparently don't: the enormous jumps in the stock prices of the private insurers are EXCLUSIVELY related to the gutting of the public option, medicare buy-in and any other measure that might have provided the private insurers with some competition. Everyone on Wall St. knows this - I work there (I'm an attorney) and my clients who invest in the healthcare industry readily acknowledge this.
The commenter doesn't even bother to suggest a specific alternative reason why ALL of the large insurers are seeing a secular increase in private insurance company stock prices. Does the commenter really believe that there is some other reason why the private health insurers have seen their stock prices rise over the last five weeks at an annual rate between 70% and 170%?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tintin
December 18, 2009 1:14 PM in reply to thomas c
Hahaha. Thomas, if "everyone" on Wall Street "knew" anything, then they wouldn't have lost their shirt, jacket, underwear, socks...and all their other possessions in 2008.
As someone above pointed out, the "reason" could also be that folks think the bill is going to fail, which it's been on the brink of doing multiple times.
Capitalizing EXCLUSIVELY only shows you know nothing and neither do your tipsters. Let's see, the 6m chart for Wellpoint shows that it's gone from 48.83 to 58.9. Want to guess how many non-health care stocks have done even better?
And if, by "annual," you mean "annualized," then you're talking utter bullshit and should stick to the law.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Number6
December 18, 2009 1:06 PM
E-mail Chuck.Todd@nbcuni.com and politely state why you feel RATigan should be fired.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve Marcum
December 18, 2009 1:14 PM
Really not a good point on his part. Was the market "reflecting reality" when the Dow was at 14000? His behavior was worthy of a Fox News host, but when your channel has become the opposite of a really bad model, who should be surprised? It's not about journalism.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GayIthacan
December 18, 2009 1:16 PM
Isn't it amazing that I have NEVER heard Rachel Maddow raise her voice to ANYONE - not even the 'gay cure' guy she eviscerated live on hr show.
When you deal in FACTS - and know what you are talking about - you never have to raise your voice. Yelling is ALWAYS a sign that one is either wrong or else has been challenged and cannot refute an argument.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
HGW
December 18, 2009 1:27 PM
Dylan was just holding her feet to the fire and trying to get an answer. These are desperate times and we need to be getting some honest answers from our politicians instead of the usual spin. Besides, Debbie is a politician and can take the heat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tintin
December 18, 2009 2:07 PM in reply to HGW
So whaddya think? Did he pry out any "honest" answers? No?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ru4862
December 18, 2009 1:30 PM
Trintin,
Since you like defending the status-quo. Why don't you go work in the Obama administration. Maybe it's me, but i think you'll do fine a job selling their bullshit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tintin
December 18, 2009 2:05 PM in reply to ru4862
No, actually, it's YOU who are working for the status quo. Problem is, you're too stupid to know it and too lazy to figure it out.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JefferyK
December 18, 2009 1:30 PM
Ratigan is going to have a coronary on the air if he doesn't cool it. Generally, I like the idea of an aggressive liberal talking head, but sometimes I think Ratigan's bluster is meant to conceal some deficiencies in the brain power department.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DRK
December 18, 2009 1:35 PM
His question was a legitimate one. But I no longer have any truck with these blowhards who invite guests onto their shows to answer questions and then yell over their answers. One reason this country is in such bad shape is that there is no longer any forum for civil discourse.
Ridiculous and sickening.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JefferyK
December 18, 2009 1:36 PM
P.S. The least Ratigan could do is do a better job of choosing his victims. I mean, scream at Lieberman. He deserves it. Wasserman Schultz is not Satan.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Froik
December 18, 2009 1:38 PM
Dylan Ratigan acts like a Republican plant. He's Hannity pretending to be a progressive. One doesn't sense any moral limits or decency from him at all. Hopefully MSNBC will dump him soon.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
December 18, 2009 1:55 PM in reply to Froik
He is a rethug. He brags about growing up in upstate New York in a very conservative home. He loves the sound of his irritating voice. I stopped watching him. In fact, I don't watch any talking heads except for Rachel and Keith. I love Keith but he is getting a bit over the top these days.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Shoto
December 18, 2009 1:45 PM
Ratigan needs to pose these difficult questions (which he has proven he can do) and then STFU and let the guest dig themselves into a hole. For example:
"Why have these stock prices radically spiked?" Then, STFU and let the idiot Congressperson drool out the (expected) uninformed answers (read: drivel). Simple.
So hey Dylan: The content is there, but the style is way too much O'Reilly/Hannity. Hence, more of the former, and way less of the latter. It's more effective and has much more TV Machine staying power...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rightiswrong
December 18, 2009 1:54 PM
An opportunity to question a congresscritter shouldn't be wasted on asshattery.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mstar57
December 18, 2009 1:55 PM
Dylan Ratigan was correct in my opinion. This Congresswoman was in fact spouting "Democartic Party Talking Points"...and she is definitely an Obama "War Criminal" lapdog! And her attitude regarding support of a worthless, POS Health Care Bill is discusting! Kudows to Dylan!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Neets
December 18, 2009 1:57 PM
It's true that Dylan's question alone have left the question for the congresswoman to answer and let her dig herself into a hole.
In his defense however, I saw him as insisting she answer the question he asked and as a result she admitted to not being able to give an answer.
He sure tapped into my rage on this issue, because I feel the same way he does on the subject. She does have an answer, but the real answer is nothing she would dare admit to in public.
"Because elected officials all get a nice cut of the profits Dylan." How about that for an answer. Honest and to the point.
He's pissed, I'm pissed, so no, I didn't have a problem with his outburst at all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rena
December 18, 2009 2:02 PM
I too am tired of hearing nothing but talking points on political talk shows. But Ratigan never let the Congresswoman get past the first sentence. I am tired of the "hosts" screaming screed "questions" then cutting off their guests before they can get a full answer out. If you're going to have a talk show, then let your guest talk. Then, if you don't like their answer, call them on it in a civil manner. If I wanted to hear people screaming others down, I'd watch YouTube video of the Tea Party events/August town hall meetings. That's not what I want to see on MSNBC. That goes for Chris Matthews/Hardball too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Johnny2Bad
December 18, 2009 2:04 PM
Congresswoman Schultz is a hack and half wit.
This is the same woman that loved it when Pelosi took impeachment "off the table" and got smacked down by Ed Schultz.
Pathetic.
(Nice going, Dylan)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
W T F
December 18, 2009 2:05 PM
Ratigan demonstrated he is a gutless thug with his little tirade. He has no business asking a member of Congress why stock prices are going up or down. And the issues he mentioned are all issues raised by the Senate bill.
If Ratigan were really interested in advancing the health care debate he'd get a guest who could speak to the issues in the Senate bill. I can't wait for him to interview Senator Nelson or Senator Snowe or Senator Lieberman or leader Reid. Can't wait.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
conchscooter
December 18, 2009 2:19 PM
As usual style wins out over substance. I like Representative Wasserman Schultz and i don't have TV reception so I don't know anything about the interviewer. However he's asking the pertinent question and she is prevaricating because he is right! Someone finally asks the question! President Do-Nothing Obama supports mandating everyone get health insurance and of the public option there is nothing left! As usual Demcocrats form a circular firing squad and Republicans pick over the corpses. Incredible! We have majorities in Congress and own the White House but we can't even get this done. We deserve to see Palin elected in 2012.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Froik
December 18, 2009 2:20 PM
Please write to MSNBC asking that they dump this ill-mannered fool. He's not a progressive or a journalist, just a thug. He looks like a Wall St. trader: letters@msnbc.com
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Neets
December 18, 2009 2:21 PM
WTF wrote:
"He has no business asking a member of Congress why stock prices are going up or down."
Oh really? There's a rule or something?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jon-P
December 18, 2009 2:26 PM
Hey people, using the stock market as any indication of anything is stupid when Republicans were doing it to critique Obama and it is just as stupid when libs do it.
The market could be just as likely excited that because of the liberal backlash THE BILL IS NOT GOING TO PASS.
who knows. its a worthless talking point. pure propaganda.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bryrock
December 18, 2009 2:30 PM
This is not at all surprising from a guy who ran a series of commercials saying that a journalist's job is to harass people. He's a dick.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
IMNOTBITTER
December 18, 2009 5:03 PM in reply to bryrock
Actually Iagree that a journalist should harass people politicians who are basically trying to lie to us. Wasserman was just going into her Spin mode that we are going to be inundated with this coming week to anestitize us into accepting this piece of crap bill.Lieberman won....Repubs got almost everyhting they wanted outside of a complete meltdown (see 1992 Clinton meltdown) Obama got his ass kicked (well actually that may not be true because like the pussy that he is he was never really in there fighting for the folks (PROGRESSIVES) who lifted him to the white house anyway.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maneesh
December 18, 2009 2:36 PM
Great Entertainment!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
amber
December 18, 2009 2:47 PM
Congresswomen Wasserman Schultz is one of my favorites, and Ratigan got out of control; however, the man did have a point. This medical bill makes me sick and it breaks my heart that the insurance company seems to have cornered and checkmated the Democrats.
I can really understand his anger and frustration, but he owes the Congresswoman an apology and a big bouquet of flowers. But the Democrats owe the country an apology for this god awful bill. They can make it up by doing something to make those insurance company stocks sink.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Neets
December 18, 2009 2:47 PM
bryrock wrote:
"This is not at all surprising from a guy who ran a series of commercials saying that a journalist's job is to harass people. He's a dick."
I went looking for the ads you mentioned, instead I found this:
Link:
http://current.com/18ol64c
FTA:
"Damien: Now that you’re at MSNBC which is more general in scope, has your reporting style changed?
Dylan: No. The same principles apply to asking smart questions and representing the interests of the taxpayers relative to politicians, banks, and anyone else who would seek to steal the taxpayers’ money because the taxpayer is seen as an easy mark. While some of these stories may begin on Wall Street, there’s a culture in this country of picking off the taxpayer for the benefit of some group of people — the corn lobby, the oil lobby, the health insurance companies, banks, unions etc. They all want a little piece of the action. So, while I’m no longer involved in the day-to-day coverage of the financial markets, I’ve never been more involved in asking the powerful people why generational theft is their policy."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Boidster
December 18, 2009 4:25 PM in reply to Neets
Dylan: No. The same principles apply to asking smart questions and representing the interests of the taxpayers relative to politicians, banks, and anyone else who would seek to steal the taxpayers’ money because the taxpayer is seen as an easy mark. While some of these stories may begin on Wall Street, there’s a culture in this country of picking off the taxpayer for the benefit of some group of people — the corn lobby, the oil lobby, the health insurance companies, banks, unions etc. They all want a little piece of the action. So, while I’m no longer involved in the day-to-day coverage of the financial markets, I’ve never been more involved in asking the powerful people why generational theft is their policy."
Aren't those conservative dog-whistles?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Neets
December 18, 2009 5:31 PM in reply to Boidster
right vs. left is a sideshow, it's more like elites vs. the peasantry in reality.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brainpicnic
December 18, 2009 3:08 PM
Okay that was ugly and unprofessional, but he raised some really good points.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
XXXOOOXXX
December 18, 2009 3:13 PM
An unfortunate exchange. He did seem to be on a hair-trigger. And she did seem to be unprepared to give a substantive reply.
But what I would really like to see is his interview with Wendell Potter, who has had some very interesting things to say about the Senate Bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Langx
December 18, 2009 3:19 PM
Jon-P
December 18, 2009 2:26 PM
Hey people, using the stock market as any indication of anything is stupid.
---
It's obvious you know nothing about the stock market.
He's right. Her answer was that she's not a stock analyst.
So she doesn't know why the stocks went up. When he attempted to explain to her and she didn't want to hear it.
Sorry but I have to give Ratigan his due on this one.
She had no clue and when he went to inform her she didn't want to hear it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Langx
December 18, 2009 3:20 PM
Oops: When he attempted to explain to her she didn't want to hear it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Unmitigated Audacity
December 18, 2009 3:30 PM
OK, he's being a dick in not letting her get a word in edgewise. But he is substantially right in what he says. The point is, is that the insurance industy will make out like the thieves that they are under this bill. Debbie (my congresswoman) purports to be a "progressive" but supports this digusting bill and every other misguided policy from Obama, just as unthinkingly as the GOP congressbots supported every Bush admin travesty. The country is being looted and destroyed by Corportist Democratic/Republican one party rule.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
democratICnproud
December 18, 2009 3:47 PM
I respect and admire Rep Wasserman Schultz and was not at all pleased with Ratigan's rant.
It is becomming clearer why CNBC removed him -- HE DOESN'T WORK WELL WITH OTHERS !!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
qcdoc
December 18, 2009 3:49 PM
LMAO...she does not have as clue to what is in the bill based on the way she started to answer. She is just a dumbass democrat that can only spew the party line.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
IMNOTBITTER
December 18, 2009 4:57 PM
Well I have to say I agree with Dylan. She was just going into the Dem spin mode that we will be hearing more and more of in the next week...BI(ll not perfect....Bill good for now....Bill must pass....Won't get another chance like this....I...AM....Telling.....Truth.....Billgood. ...Best we can get unde circumstances......Republicans made us do it....Lieberman made us do it....Lieberman bad.....Lieberman road block.....We must pass for good of country....must pass for Obama...To embarassing if we don't pass something....Bill good.....Bill goood.....billgood....bill good.....billl.... really good....... bill really really good.....bill better then public option...must pass must pass.....!!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sasha
December 18, 2009 4:57 PM
He and Chris Matthews make perfect bookends. If he can't get his guest to say what he wants her to say within three notes, he just bullies. They belong in Thunderdome together.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
HeckieMae
December 18, 2009 5:10 PM
It is really striking to me how many of you just don't get it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
December 18, 2009 5:47 PM in reply to HeckieMae
We get it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lexalexander
December 18, 2009 5:21 PM
As a reporter, you can (and should) still hold people accountable, you can (and must) still prevent the dissemination of lies and misinformation, without being rude or discourteous.
Now, speaking from experience, I'll grant that it's a lot less FUN that way .... ;-)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
stefsstuff
December 18, 2009 5:33 PM
Once again Ratigan's ego and mouth expose him for what he is - a bully!
Get back on your med's Ratigan.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mpolloc
December 18, 2009 7:40 PM
Anyone who can say with a straight face that the stock market reflects reality is too stupid to believe. Yes, he was rude and wouldn't let her respond and shifted what his question was as he went along. But the bottom line is that he is a moron (or plays one on TV), and it's a waste of time to argue with him.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CS
December 18, 2009 9:18 PM
"because the stock market reflects reality"
Just like when it was at 14000, right Dylan?
What a blowhard. Cancel this show.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jcd
December 18, 2009 9:46 PM
He was definitely rude--boorish--I don't watch his show so don't know how chronic his rudeness is. BUT I agree with him; his point about rising health care stock prices is telling--10-15% gains in a week is a lot and obviously spurred by the death of the public option. Wasserman should have responded. Of course he ought to slam the congresswoman after he's let her answer his questions, not before. But hey--the Democrats' corruption and dysfunction are starting to make people crazy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CajunModerate
December 18, 2009 9:53 PM
This is not news. This is entertainment.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JF
December 18, 2009 9:56 PM
Ratigan is not just all ears, he's a prick with ears. His parents should be prosecuted for raising a colossal asshole. What ever happened to simple good manners? It's all O'Reilly-Beck-Limbaugh-Hannity-Ratigan rudeness on the ait these days.
I don't watch anything on any major network anymore. Especially so-called news shows.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shekissesfrogs
December 18, 2009 9:59 PM
I wish TPM showed the IP addresses because I suspect there are paid shills here. It's like a damed Group think session among the same group of apologists for this shit bill they are trying to shove down our throats without going through reconciliation.
Dean is right, Dylan is right. Ignore the wolves at your peril.
Single payer or the public option is the only government system that will work properly. Goverment laws to force you too buy insurance from blood suckers is wrong.
Drop the mandate and enforce anti-triust laws, pass the drug reimportation bill and nullify Obamas deal with Pharma. He's not a negotiator and the public purse is not his wallet.
That's congress' job.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GregorZap
December 19, 2009 12:45 AM
Ratigan is right in the end. It was a waste of time. After the first minute, he never allows the Senator to finish a single sentence. He asked and answered his own questions, so W-S was right, he was being his own guest and making the Senator a prop. There are many people who think of this as entertainment, proof that there were many children left behind.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dave Adams
December 19, 2009 2:59 AM in reply to GregorZap
I hate to say "ditto" but it's appropriate in this case. It would have been great to listen to a discussion on this. And while I agree with Ratigan on the issues, the way he went after Schultz was just over-the-top. If you're going to ask a question and demand an answer, DON'T ANSWER YOUR OWN QUESTION, and BTW shut up for a few seconds so the person being interviwed can get a word in edgewise.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Gilead
December 19, 2009 1:11 AM
We desperately need media reform.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MarciaJ720
December 19, 2009 10:07 AM
We need media reform but with the upcoming merger of Comcast and NBC/Universal, does anyone think we will get it?
In fact, I worry about losing some of the only voices on the Left that are allowed to speak (Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow for a couple of examples).
Pew did some polling about 3 years ago and found that people have been very dumbed down about the News, even though they have it available 24/7 now days. It isn't News though, it is reporting with a lot of adjectives, personal touches added to the story to influence the reader/watcher.
Pew also found that people who watched the Daily Show and PBS's Newshour were the most educated about News events.. FOX watchers were the least informed (with the exception of Bill O's audience).
De-Regulation is bad for the people in any form, from the banks to the media.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
some dude named steevo
December 19, 2009 11:03 AM
I wish all journalist did this all the time. I am tired of Corporate-owned Politicians. I hope Ratigan doesn't apologize for anything.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CajunModerate
December 19, 2009 4:10 PM
i will say one thing, though. she's kinda hot.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bill
December 20, 2009 10:41 PM
Here is the point made clear in the Washington Post summary of the Senate 'compromise', posted to the web Dec 19 and written by Shailagh Murray and Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer. This is very very clear:
“And all insurance companies would be required to spend at least 80 cents of every dollar they collect in premiums on delivering care to their customers.” The 80/20 ‘Compromise’ is by far the most example that Reid et al have crafted yet another corporate bailout at the citizens’ expense. Now, get this: 20 cents of every dollar - that’s 20 cents of every 100 cents - by law (at least by the Senate ‘compromise’) can be retained by private sector insurers to pay their bonuses, lard their bottom line, expand their investments, fight appeals to the ‘independent panels’, contribute to ‘sympathetic candidates’, etc.
The Senate bill as now written provides that everyone in America pay for private sector health care, in short, wasting 20 cents of every health care dollar, piddling it off to middlers, who deliver no health care whatsoever, require mind numbing paper work, jerk you around with ‘co-pays’ and ‘contributions’, etc, but do not ever in any shape or form deliver health care services to you. This is what the Senate has brought us.
And here’s an added insult brought by the White House to everyone who is not a private sector health insurance corporate employee: Because both the right and the left think citizens should not be mandated by their government to provide corporate welfare for private sector health insurance companies with both taxes (paid to corporations as ‘subsidies’ to cover the poor who cannot afford to payoff the corporations) and premiums (20 percent of which are not used to provide health care services), they have persuaded themselves that independents will just love it! That’s a three- bagger: They’ve insulted the independents, the right and the left.
Oh, forgot, there's that other segment - owners of health insurance company stock - the ones the commentator was referring to - they're happy, too. It's just the public's interest that was squashed; corporate welfare is safe and sound.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bindarra
December 21, 2009 11:53 AM
Rude bastard. This is why I can't tolerate his show.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tosh
January 31, 2010 2:13 PM
well said Bindarra Buy Kamagra M65 Field Jacket
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?