Andrea Mitchell Acts as Administration Spokesperson

[Brooks]

This is a little disappointing because I thought Andrea Mitchell was one of the more balanced ones

GOP Rep. Sean Duffy Demands Andrea Mitchell Defend Democrats Keeping Obamacare Perks - YouTube

 

[American]

She starts out covering herself by blaming both sides, then calls on a Republican congressman and acts like a shill for the Administration.

 

[WCH]

This is a little disappointing because I thought Andrea Mitchell was one of the more balanced ones

GOP Rep. Sean Duffy Demands Andrea Mitchell Defend Democrats Keeping Obamacare Perks - YouTube

She's married to Alan Greenspan. Can't get much more elitist than that.

 

[Moot]

This is a little disappointing because I thought Andrea Mitchell was one of the more balanced ones

GOP Rep. Sean Duffy Demands Andrea Mitchell Defend Democrats Keeping Obamacare Perks - YouTube

Whether you like it or not, the president is the news and is reported as such during news breaks and evening news ...but discussing the news is called commentary and opinion.

Along with reporting straight news, Andrea Mitchell also hosts a news commentary opinion program. She often invites guests with opposing views, so she can ask the hard questions from the opposing side. Whereas, FoxNews hosts only seems to invite guests they agree with. So which commentary program do you think is more balanced? I lean toward the former.

 

[Excon]

Whether you like it or not, the president is the news and is reported as such during news breaks and evening news ...but discussing the news is called commentary and opinion.

Along with reporting straight news, Andrea Mitchell also hosts a news commentary opinion program. She often invites guests with opposing views, so she can ask the hard questions from the opposing side. Whereas, FoxNews hosts only seems to invite guests they agree with. So which commentary program do you think is more balanced? I lean toward the former.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with her acting like a shill for the Administration.

 

[Moot]

Which has absolutely nothing to do with her acting like a shill for the Administration.

Who was Rep. Duffy shilling for? The Kochs?



DUFFY: You were asking me about the larger issue of why can’t people resolve this government shutdown. And we have been incredibly reasonable, making a small ask. And if the president doesn’t like what we’ve….

MITCHELL: Do you consider it a small ask that he get rid of the central part of his health care plan that was upheld by the vote of a presidential election and the United States Supreme Court?

DUFFY: Andrea, hold on. That’s your spin.

MITCHELL: That’s not spin.



Mitchell is right, thats not spin. It's fact.

 

[Brooks]

Whether you like it or not, the president is the news and is reported as such during news breaks and evening news ...but discussing the news is called commentary and opinion.

Along with reporting straight news, Andrea Mitchell also hosts a news commentary opinion program. She often invites guests with opposing views, so she can ask the hard questions from the opposing side. Whereas, FoxNews hosts only seems to invite guests they agree with. So which commentary program do you think is more balanced? I lean toward the former.

There is news and there are debate shows. Andrea Mitchell was not on a debate show, that was supposed to be an interview, she just couldn't help herself.
Could you talk about her in terms of her performance and not in terms of Fox News?

 

[Brooks]

Who was Rep. Duffy shilling for? The Kochs?



DUFFY: You were asking me about the larger issue of why can’t people resolve this government shutdown. And we have been incredibly reasonable, making a small ask. And if the president doesn’t like what we’ve….

MITCHELL: Do you consider it a small ask that he get rid of the central part of his health care plan that was upheld by the vote of a presidential election and the United States Supreme Court?

DUFFY: Andrea, hold on. That’s your spin.

MITCHELL: That’s not spin.



Mitchell is right, thats not spin. It's fact.

That's ALL you saw in that seven minute clip?

Anyway, that was spin. Everything the president does cannot be defended simply on the basis of winning an election.
And his second election was not about Obamacare. If you remember, his campaign played it as a wash being that he was running against Romneycare. His handlers avoided Obamacare during the election so there is absolutely no mandate on that.
That's besides the fact that the public is just now learning what it's all about.

But to get back on topic, That bit about "the central part of his health care plan that was upheld by the vote of a presidential election" was a talking point he himself used last week.
She's repeating the administration's soundbytes for crying out loud.

 

[Bronson]

Whether you like it or not, the president is the news and is reported as such during news breaks and evening news ...but discussing the news is called commentary and opinion.

Along with reporting straight news, Andrea Mitchell also hosts a news commentary opinion program. She often invites guests with opposing views, so she can ask the hard questions from the opposing side. Whereas, FoxNews hosts only seems to invite guests they agree with. So which commentary program do you think is more balanced? I lean toward the former.

She's an ugly hag. Deceitful lying witch

Glad I could clear that up for you

 

[Moot]

She's an ugly hag. Deceitful lying witch

Glad I could clear that up for you

She's actually a very nice lady. All the attention is helping to raise the ratings on her show. lol

 

[rocket88]

She's an ugly hag. Deceitful lying witch

Ann Coulter is not the topic of this thread.

 

[Bronson]

She's actually a very nice lady. All the attention is helping to raise the ratings on her show. lol

Yea sure she is

I'm sure you have over to your house for dinner all the time

 

[vvx]

Andrea totally failed at the question of why congress has to be part of Obamacare and the president doesn't. The way she answered (or didn't answer) it, you'd think she doesn't know the reason. Of course, the reason is because congress wrote it into the law that they buy insurance through the exchange, and it that came about because of Grassley's amendment.

I dislike the way Duffy views Obamacare. Well, duh. But, I mean, the way he talks about it, I am not "in Obamacare" because I'm not buying my insurance on the exchange. Like the president, like most Americans, my insurance comes through my employer. Still, the insurance my employer can offer is very much affected by Obamacare. The ACA affects a huge number of things in healthcare outside of the exchanges. It would be more correct to say Duffy is less "in Obamacare" than I am. Because he's getting an employer subsidy from a large employer while participating in the exchanges, something no one else can get away with right now.

 

[Moot]

That's ALL you saw in that seven minute clip?

Anyway, that was spin. Everything the president does cannot be defended simply on the basis of winning an election.
And his second election was not about Obamacare. If you remember, his campaign played it as a wash being that he was running against Romneycare. His handlers avoided Obamacare during the election so there is absolutely no mandate on that.
That's besides the fact that the public is just now learning what it's all about.

But to get back on topic, That bit about "the central part of his health care plan that was upheld by the vote of a presidential election" was a talking point he himself used last week.
She's repeating the administration's soundbytes for crying out loud.

So if someone in the media repeats the presidents position on negotions that makes them a shill? Really? It was perfectly valid for Mitchell to question Duffy on the president's position.

You act like Obama isn't even the president and everything he says is illigitimate and has no bearing or opinion on the matter. That kind of ignorant disrespect is akin to birtherism.

Remember it takes two sides to negotiate....not one side saying they won't destroy the country, if the other side submits to all their outrageous demands.

 

[Excon]

Who was Rep. Duffy shilling for? The Kochs?

The Kochs?
Your question is none other than a display of rabid partisanship.

Kochs to Congress: Focus on spending, not Obamacare
By Michael Isikoff, NBC News

In a move that highlights a growing rift in conservative ranks, Koch Industries -- the privately held energy conglomerate owned by billionaires Charles and David Koch -- today distanced the firm from allied political groups lobbying to keep the government shut down unless Obamacare is defunded.

A letter, signed by the company's chief lobbyist and sent to members of Congress, says that Koch Industries has taken no position on the shutdown dispute in Congress "nor have we lobbied on legislative provisions defending Obamacare."

Instead, Koch Industries wants Congress to focus on "balancing the budget" and "cutting government spending," among other goals, said Philip Ellender, Koch Industries president for government and public affairs.

The letter comes in the wake of media reports documenting how Freedom Partners -- a newly formed conservative trade association closely associated with the Koch brothers -- has helped finance many of the conservative and Tea Party groups that have been pressuring Republicans to link defunding Obamacare to the passage of a continuing resolution to fund the government and extend the debt ceiling.
[...]​

Kochs to Congress: Focus on spending, not Obamacare - NBC Politics​

Who was Rep. Duffy shilling for?

Shilling?
He isn't shilling.
Mitchell was.

It was perfectly valid for Mitchell to question Duffy on the president's position.

That isn't what she was doing.
She was shilling.
Telling him that it was non-negotiable was shilling the Admin's talking point.

Especially as it is not non-negotiable.

 

[Grim17]

Kinda says it all...

 

[Grim17]

Or maybe this one says it better...

 

[CanadaJohn]

This is a little disappointing because I thought Andrea Mitchell was one of the more balanced ones

GOP Rep. Sean Duffy Demands Andrea Mitchell Defend Democrats Keeping Obamacare Perks - YouTube

I'm sorry, but at one moment in time was Andrea Mitchell ever "balanced" either in the political or mental sense?

 

[Henrin]

Who was Rep. Duffy shilling for? The Kochs?



DUFFY: You were asking me about the larger issue of why can’t people resolve this government shutdown. And we have been incredibly reasonable, making a small ask. And if the president doesn’t like what we’ve….

MITCHELL: Do you consider it a small ask that he get rid of the central part of his health care plan that was upheld by the vote of a presidential election and the United States Supreme Court?

DUFFY: Andrea, hold on. That’s your spin.

MITCHELL: That’s not spin.

Mitchell is right, thats not spin. It's fact.

Yeah, it was more like a non-argument. Who cares that Obama won the election and that the supreme court doesn't care about the constitution or for that matter liberty? It has nothing to do with the greater point of equal treatment under the law, which was the entire argument she was presented with. You know, that thing that people like yourself are constantly talking about. It's kind of funny that when the democrats want to force everyone into commerce they forget all about equal treatment, isn't it? Then again, they seem to forget about it pretty often. Does anyone think that progressive taxation has anything to do with equal treatment under the law? Does anyone think that the estate tax has anything to do with equal treatment under the law? Does anyone think that the welfare programs they support have anything to do with equal treatment under the law? From what I can tell the only time they care about equal treatment under the law is when the government can push people around.

 

[Henrin]

So if someone in the media repeats the presidents position on negotions that makes them a shill? Really? It was perfectly valid for Mitchell to question Duffy on the president's position.

You act like Obama isn't even the president and everything he says is illigitimate and has no bearing or opinion on the matter. That kind of ignorant disrespect is akin to birtherism.

Remember it takes two sides to negotiate....not one side saying they won't destroy the country, if the other side submits to all their outrageous demands.

Yeah, demanding equal treatment under the law is some outrageous bull****. Those damn republicans should be ashamed of themselves. :roll:

 

[Brooks]

I dislike the way Duffy views Obamacare. Well, duh. But, I mean, the way he talks about it, I am not "in Obamacare" because I'm not buying my insurance on the exchange. Like the president, like most Americans, my insurance comes through my employer. Still, the insurance my employer can offer is very much affected by Obamacare. The ACA affects a huge number of things in healthcare outside of the exchanges.

You sound like you actually have an understanding of the ACA, most people who are against it think it's an all encompassing, inescapable entity that we will all be using.

But your're also right that it has already negatively affected those who have their own insurance outside of Obamacare.
I think the reason the public is so late to the party in fighting the ACA is because, by design, its true impact was never explained.

 

[Brooks]

So if someone in the media repeats the presidents position on negotions that makes them a shill? Really? It was perfectly valid for Mitchell to question Duffy on the president's position.
You act like Obama isn't even the president and everything he says is illigitimate and has no bearing or opinion on the matter. That kind of ignorant disrespect is akin to birtherism.
Remember it takes two sides to negotiate....not one side saying they won't destroy the country, if the other side submits to all their outrageous demands.

I don't think Andrea Mitchell is a shill, I actually think she's professional. What she is is biased, as we all are, but shouldn't let her bias bleed into a straight interview.

She gives herself away at 6:30 on the video. She tries to corner him with a gotcha but she turned out to be misinformed. It happens.
An interviewer would say "I was not aware of that, could you explain how that came to be".
An advocate will sit silently and uncomfortably not knowing how to counter the other's point.
Take a look at what she did.

Other times during the interview, Representative Duffy made points she couldn't counter or wasn't aware of. If her goal was to inform the audience she would have asked for more explanation. But since her goal was to advocate she turned the conversation to other topics, most strikingly at 4:45 and 6:55.

And yet another time, at 3:00, Andrea calls something a "non-negotiable demand". She didn't say "the president considers that a non-negotiable demand", she stated as fact that something was non-negotiable. A small point but a very telling one. I won't call her a shill, but she's dancing around the fringes of shilldom.

If this were a debate show and she was a panelist rather than moderator I'd say she did a pretty good job, but it wasn't the former and she wasn't the latter.

GOP Rep. Sean Duffy Demands Andrea Mitchell Defend Democrats Keeping Obamacare Perks - YouTube

 

[Brooks]

Does anyone think that progressive taxation has anything to do with equal treatment under the law? Does anyone think that the estate tax has anything to do with equal treatment under the law? Does anyone think that the welfare programs they support have anything to do with equal treatment under the law? From what I can tell the only time they care about equal treatment under the law is when the government can push people around.

Worth repeating

 

[Fishstyx]

If I was Fuller, I'd have hammered her on the "non-negotiable" aspect. That line is what made here sound a like WH/Dem shill. Who the hell is she to deem the delay for individuals a "non-negotiable" item.

 

[rocket88]

Kinda says it all...

so does this: