Comments on: Under The Influence
Add a Comment
- « Previous
- 1 ...
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Re: PhRMA and the drug benefit. Mr. Pollack displays a breathtaking ignorance about how the non-negotiation language was added to the drug bill. Bill Clinton proposed it in his 1999 version and every Democratic bill thereafter (including those sponsored by Tom Daschle and Nancy Pelosi) included the language. The reason: precisely because--said the Democrats--they didn't want Medicare to be as limited as the VA in the drugs it offered. Pollack is also wrong when he talks about how the VA "negotiates" drug prices: it doesn't. By law, the VA price controls its limited drug choices, statutorily receiving at least 24% off of commerical pricing.
- Reply to this comment
- What can the average American do to STOP the crooks who sell our votes to the highest bidder? And don't tell me to write my Congressional reps. That doesn't work!!!! Tauzin isn't the only greedy sleeze in the Congress. Both sides follow the same GOD--the almighty buck. What happened to integrity, decency. honor, morals, etc? They never stop amazing me. I always think that one day they will all wake up and realize what they are doing to us and to themselves. Pardon my naivete.
- Reply to this comment
- In the opening commentary of this interview, Steve refers to Dan Burton as a Rep. from Illinois. I live in Fishers, IN and unfornately Dan Burton is my Rep.. If Illinois is interested in him, they can have him. Just let them know he normally doesn't show up to vote .....
- Reply to this comment
- Of course, as a good journalist Katie Couric should have scheduled the interview with the Edwards last Sunday.
Of course, she should have asked the hard questions: How did you and your wife make the decision to continue your campaign when the recurrence of cancer became known? How do you respond to Rush Limbaugh who says, "...."? What will you tell potential supporters and financial backers who ask how you will react if (God forbid!) your wife's cancer worsens during your campaign or during your presidency (if you were to be elected)?
Each of these questions could have been asked once--and thoughtfully. Instead what we got was a harangue. The same questions over and over again, in a cold, snippy tone, with the underlying assumption that Mrs. Edwards is dying--now.
If only she had ever, once shown the same insistent tone in questioning members of the Bush regime, esp. the VP . . . . But no, never!
So, so long 60 Minutes. You fallen to a journalistic low. Henceforth, I will go elsewhere for unbiased coverage--or, at least, for coverage that labels its own bias.
Neoconservatism is NOT news. It's opinion. Some people say it's even neo-fascism. Some people . . . . Hmmm, wonder who they might have been.
(Google it!) - Reply to this comment
- How I would like to hear Steve Kroft on Congress's response to pharmaceutical lobbyists.
BUT until I see or hear an apology from Katie Couric (or preferably a resignation) regarding her non-professional, biased, neoconservative approach to her interview of the Edwards, no morfe 60 Minutes for me.
It is simply journalistically unforgivable to lead off questions with "people say." Thos of us who know her know that she was simply activing as a shill for Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly and "journalists" of their ilk--of which she is clearly just one more.
What she did not do was to admit publicly that she continued to work, making millions a year, while her husband was dying of cancer. What she did not do was cite the positive examples of people like Lance Armstrong. What she did not do was to give John Edwards the chance to talk about a single issue beyond defending himself against charges of negligence of his wife and children. (Will she show the same concern for the first (and second and third) wife of such candidates as Newt Gingerich, Rudy Guliani, John McCain? - Reply to this comment
- shouldn't this be in the politics or u.s. news section?????
- Reply to this comment
- « Previous
- 1 ...
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
