MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell: Pay No Attention to What You've Heard (From Rachel Maddow)
This keeps up, I won't feel so guilty watching reruns of "The West Wing."
Lawrence O'Donnell made a pointed observation on his cable show Thursday night that came across as helpfully illuminating -- and more than a tad passive-aggressive when juxtaposed with what MSNBC colleague Rachel Maddow said only an hour earlier. (video after page break)
Maddow had done her strenuous best to defend the Obama administration's new mandate on insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, sterilizations and contraceptives.
What's all the fuss, Maddow demanded, claiming that 28 states already have similar mandates --
In these 28 states there's already state law that requires employers, including in many cases employers associated with religious institutions, to provide health insurance that covers contraception. That is already the law of the land in these 28 states. There is a reason you have not been deafened by the cries of outrage over that policy in these 28 states. It's because nobody in the Republican Party decided that that sort of thing would be an outrage until now, until they could somehow try to use it against President Obama, even though they never cared about it before.
Actually, in eight of those 28 states that require health insurance to cover contraception, in these eight states there's not even an exemption for churches. That's true of all these godless places you see here like Georgia and Iowa and Montana. So in fact the Obama administration's proposed new rule on health insurance, which says religious institutions like churches do not have to provide health insurance that covers contraception, those new rules from the Obama administration would actually give churches a new exemption from that law that they've never had before. In eight states the Obama administration rule would carve out more space for churches to evade the rules that everybody else has to operate by on the basis of their religious beliefs. More space for the proverbial Amish bus driver rule to get invoked, right, where you can hire a guy to be a bus driver and then once he's got the job, bus driver, he can cite the fact that he's Amish as the reason he's not going to drive the bus. I personally, along with many other people across this country, along with eight states across the country, thinks it is bizarre that there should be religious belief exemptions from having to follow laws like this. But the Obama administration is willing to go there. Their rules will exempt churches, which eight states right now don't even do. Their rules are a compromise measure designed to be super-sensitive to religious institutions.
Followed by this from O'Donnell, whose show airs after Maddow's weeknights on MSNBC (transcript that follows up-sprinkled with snarky italicized commentary) --
O'DONNELL: Now you've heard many, many times in the last couple of days ...
... and tonight on this network ...
O'DONNELL: ...that there are now 28 states that have passed laws similar to the regulation in the Obama health care law and that all of that has become so suddenly controversial. You've also been told, and I've been told repeatedly on television ...
... at the water cooler, in the hallway, getting on the elevator ...
O'DONNELL: ... that eight (stated with Maddowesque ferver) of those states have absolutely no exemptions to the law, none. No religious exemptions at all, no way out for Catholic churches, Catholic schools, Catholic hospitals. They're stuck. And I gotta tell you, when I heard that, every time I heard it, it just didn't sound right to me. And whenever I hear people in Washington or New York ...
... or 30 Rock ...
O'DONNELL: ...telling me what's happening out there in the states, in some state law, in a place where they've never been, I just don't believe them. And you shouldn't either. And so, in a "Last Word" exclusive investigation ...
... as opposed to regurgitation of spoon-fed talking points ...
O'DONNELL: ... we spent the day today studying the statutes in the eight states that everyone ...
... emphasis here on "one" ...
O'DONNELL: ... is saying provide absolutely no exemption. The other 20 states, everyone agrees, provide bigger, more comfortable exemptions for the Catholic Church, including Massachusetts, which has falsely been reported ...
.... not yet by Maddow but give her time ...
O'DONNELL: ... as being identical to the provision inserted in the federal law. In all of those other 20 state laws there's an exemption big enough for the White House to drive through.
... and big enough to ignore for those so inclined ...
O'DONNELL: Let's look then at the Georgia law.
... Georgia, godless Georgia ...O'DONNELL: ... which you've been told and I've been told repeatedly has absolutely no exemptions and does have that astonishingly liberal sounding prose introduction to it that I just read. (Cited at beginning of this segment from "The Last Word"). The Georgia law actually says ...
... for those willing to engage in journalism ...
... 'This code section shall not be construed to require coverage for prescription coverage benefits in any contract policy or plan that does not otherwise provide coverage for prescription drugs.' And there is the huge exemption to the Georgia law. You are exempt from it if your policy simply does not provide for prescription drugs. And so all the religious institutions have to do in Georgia to avoid the requirement to providing birth control pills is to just not provide any drug benefit in their policies, which is true of an awful lot of health insurance policies out there anyway.
Ball's in your court, Rachel
- Jack Coleman's blog
- Login to post comments















Comments
Liberals have to lie, since
Submitted by robert108 on Sun, 02/12/2012 - 8:29pm.
Liberals have to lie, since the truth is not on their side.
Dubya
Submitted by Jerry Frey on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 2:21am.
I'm an independent populist.
Both parties are wings of the ONE party of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.
Anyone who thinks one group has a monoply on the truth, is out of touch with reality.
Dubya lied out his ace.
When Bush scared Americans with the threat of WMD to justify the invasion of Iraq, he never described a delivery system that would ACTUALLY threaten US.
http://napoleonlive.info/did-you-know/facts-about-the-iraq-invasion/
Too bad that he listened
Submitted by David Kramer on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 2:32am.
to Clinton and others huh? Do you think by listening to the Democrats the Democrats set a trap for him? I mean are you saying that you think the Democrats told everyone that there were WMDs and such to have us go to war so that they could attack him later? Is that what you are saying? By the way, what does your comment have to do with the article?
Jerry Frey.....You are correct that President George W. Bush
Submitted by Rush Fan on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 4:44am.
scared Americans regarding WMDs. The Democrats never believed there were WMDs in Iraq or that Saddam Hussein was a threat. I remember clearly that NO ONE in President Bill Clinton's Administration, including President Clinton, said that Iraq had ANY WMDs or that Iraq was a threat. As you indicated, Bush made up this WMD lie out of thin air and duped the American public!
I see that you provided a link to support your contention that Bush lied. Before others post comments criticizing your comments, let me help you Jerry by providing another link to a VIDEO that supports your argument and proves beyond doubt that Dubya fabricated the WMD LIE out of whole cloth, and as you so accurately and succinctly put it, "lied out his ace."
In fact, here is another VIDEO that shows President Bush's wife, Laura Bush, lying about Saddam Hussein and WMDs,
Lastly, let me just say that it's nice to meet someone for a change here at NewsBusters that is as informed and educated as you are. I see that you have only been a NewsBusters' poster for a short time. So let me welcome you to NewsBusters. I look forward to more of your informed, concise and reliable posts (and links).
regards,
rush fan
p.s. I do have one disagreement with your post. Unlike you, I admire rich people. Most of them have worked very hard to obtain their wealth, so that they can help support President Obama in his effort to redistribute their wealth to unions and green energy companies such as Solyndra and some of it's investors, such as top Obama bundler George Kaiser.
p.s.s I thought David posed an excellent question to you: "By the way, what does your comment have to do with the article?"
Clinton and Albright also believed that the warnings
Submitted by gobnait06 on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 11:31am.
they received about a 9/11 type attack on the USA, long before Bush became president, was not plausible either.
⇒ 12/18/98
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 11:40am.
That was the date of President Clinton's address to America in which he announced sending cruise missiles into Iraq to combat Saddam's Weapons Of Mass Destruction capability.
Liberals may honestly believe it was a clever ploy to get America's mind off of what was going on under the President's desk, but that would also mean the President committed murder to provide a diversion.
BTW, while we're on the subject of Monica Lewinski, why is "ho hum" an expression of boredom?
Lied out his ace? Those are the words of a Bush hater.
Submitted by jawebster1 on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 4:55am.
Bush haters always claim Bush lied when the only reason they use the word is because it rhymes with "died" and makes a nice sign or bumper sticker for them to parade around with...like the silly acers they are
Obama either lies or reverses himself in nearly every speech he makes, yet he is hardly ever called a liar by the non-Fox News media or the left. Tell me Mr. Bush hater, just when did Bush lie?
I can give you many instances where Obama, as President, either lied or reversed himself on issues he loudly supported while he was running for the office he now holds.
Lying or deceiving, in order to get elected, it is all the same. Let us all pray that the end result of the Obama presidency is not: "Obama lied and our Constitution died!"
Well it's easy to tell when Oh Bumbler is lying.
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 10:56am.
HIS LIPS ARE MOVING!
Jim Webster......Let's wish Bush hater Jerry Frey a few final
Submitted by Rush Fan on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 1:33pm.
words of parting: 'Have a nice day'.
Where is your proof
Submitted by gobnait06 on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 11:28am.
...that there were no WMDs? Because they were not found? You can't conceive that it's at least within the realm of possibility that those weapons did exist and were moved to another country-Syria perhaps? Based on Hussein's (Saddam, not Barack) past behavior of easy brutality against his own people, I believe it's more likely that there were weapons that he successfully hid from inspectors.
Definition of an independent populist:
Submitted by jawebster1 on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 1:26pm.
Someone who is too cowardly or too embarrassed to admit that he is, in reality, a Liberal Democrat
I wish SH had no WMD
Submitted by conservative colin on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 4:07pm.
Why is it so difficult to comprehend that Saddam had WMD? It is an inconvenient truth that he had WMD. He killed 100s of thousands of Iranians and thousands of his own ethnic Kurds with WMD, that is just the plain sad truth. Today there are still 1000's of 155mm artillery shells filled with sarin and other toxins that can be turned into WMD/IEDs. These can fit into a backpack; brought into stadiums or malls or wherever. Think it through, didn't Saddam use WMD? how could he use them if he didn't have them? Did he use every last one of them and make no more? Not likely, huh? One 155mm shell filled with Sarin could detonated in a full football stadium (or Soccer) could kill 50,000 people.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/18/1084783486180.html
I seem to recall AG Reno
Submitted by Injest on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 7:45pm.
described a delivery system that would ACTUALLY threaten US.
Are you sure? I seem to recall AG Reno
The Guardian
February 6, 1999
Saddam link to Bin Laden
By Julian Borger
Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to US intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials.
News of the negotiations emerged in a week when the US attorney general, Janet Reno, warned the Senate that a terrorist attack involving weapons of mass destruction was a growing concern. "There's a threat, and it's real," Ms Reno said, adding that such weapons "are being considered for use."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,314700,00.html
Yep , that's it AG Janet Reno telling the Senate that not only was OBL working with Saddam but they intended to attack the USA. True US attorney general, Janet Reno didn’t state the delivery system, however when you talking about NBC warfare there are literally hundreds of ways to accomplish this
Oh in 1999 Bush was not POTUS, so how exactly did Bush scared Americans with the threat of WMD to justify the invasion of Iraq, when the actual threat disseminated 4 years before the Iraq invasion was started? Do you concede your just simply ignorant?
"There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with the inspectors or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to defend himself if the United States comes after him. And he will use them; we should be under no illusion about that."
Joseph Wilson, Advisor to John Kerry 2004 Presidential Campaign
In a Los Angeles Times editorial: "A 'Big Cat' With Nothing to Lose"
February 6, 2003; Page B17
opps looks like Joe Wilson, yes that Joe Wilson was saying Saddam had WMD's and would use them.
CNN: How did Hussein intend to use the weapon, once it was completed?
HAMZA: Saddam has a whole range of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, biological and chemical. According to German intelligence estimates, we expect him to have three nuclear weapons by 2005. So, the window will close by 2005, and we expect him then to be a lot more aggressive with his neighbors and encouraging terrorism, and using biological weapons. Now he's using them through surrogates like al Qaeda, but we expect he'll use them more aggressively then.
Dr. Khidhir Hamza, former Iraqi Nuclear Scientist for 20 years
Interviewed on CNN
October 22, 2001
Can't spell "liberal" without
Submitted by Beukeboom on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 4:36pm.
Can't spell "liberal" without "l-i-e"
Oh, Cat Fight!
Submitted by Spinningplates2 on Sun, 02/12/2012 - 8:33pm.
Thank you so much for the "snarky italicized commentary. " I love it.
Why is this matter even of
Submitted by LaVallette on Sun, 02/12/2012 - 8:45pm.
Why is this matter even of concern to MS. MADDOW. Her girlfriend/partner can never get pregnant by her.
Modern Science Could Lead to...
Submitted by BondPlainBond on Sun, 02/12/2012 - 9:29pm.
...Maddow and her partner going the route of Melissa Etheridge/Julie Cypher/David Crosby in asking Joe Scarborough to be the biological father of their child.
Why Come?
Submitted by IrateNate on Sun, 02/12/2012 - 10:18pm.
Somebody hid the turkey baster?
Good for Lawrence... now MSNBC can advertise "Fair & Balanced"
Submitted by swenk22 on Sun, 02/12/2012 - 8:48pm.
Good for Lawrence... now MSNBC can advertise "Fair & Balanced"
Gosh
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 7:35am.
I thought the MSNBC slogan was "Fairly Unbalanced".
Ow-ee
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 02/12/2012 - 8:52pm.
Hey, O'Donnell, while you're on a roll, could you remind Sharpton on the air to pay the IRS the $1.6 million he owes?
Larry could have even dumbed it down further for Rich, er Rach.
Submitted by UpNorth on Sun, 02/12/2012 - 8:52pm.
A state law is not the "law of the land".
Who is this guy, and what has
Submitted by poseA on Sun, 02/12/2012 - 8:52pm.
Who is this guy, and what has he done with the media lap dog Lawrence O'Donnell?
Hhmm, I always thought this guy was to big a hack
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 02/12/2012 - 8:59pm.
To do anything remotely like journalism. I am pretty sure he is on probation now
OK, which one of you stole the chick from the other one?
Submitted by KyWriter on Sun, 02/12/2012 - 9:01pm.
This may get interesting.
I would say Rachel could beat her (O'Donnell's) clock!
Submitted by drsamherman on Sun, 02/12/2012 - 11:33pm.
She already has more testicular fortitude than he does.
Yeah, I know Larry isn't a girl, but he sure acts like a little one.
O'Donnell was followed an hour later
Submitted by NC Boy on Sun, 02/12/2012 - 11:40pm.
by Al Sharpton who said, "Seems like I heard one time there are MORE than 28 states"!
Right
Submitted by skolbrother on Sun, 02/12/2012 - 11:53pm.
Right ! Every time the MSM says there are 28 states that have a similar mandate they NEVER include a Religious org. in those states that abide by the mandate. That's because there ARE exemptions & loopholes but they cant report that and expose their Beloved One.
worse and worser
Submitted by Jerry Frey on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 2:15am.
Lawrence O'Donnell is worse than KO. The former is an avowed Socialist; the latter is simply a jerk.
You got that right. Not bad for an...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 1:35pm.
independent populist.
Jerry, maybe you need a refresher course in how NB works?
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 9:12pm.
You post something, like your asinine comment about Bush and WMD's, people rip you a new one, then you attempt to defend your indefensible position. Please, pay attention, there will be a test. And, trying to weasel your way back in with a non-sequiter like your O'Donnell-KO reference will get you nowhere.
Pay no attention to Rachel Maddow? As far as I know...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 4:18am.
those are the first words coming out of O'Donnell's mouth I agree with. If O'Donnell is offering those words up as advice to me personally, it is a waste of effort. I already don't pay any attention to Rachel Maddow or MSNBC for that matter. I have deleted that channel from my TV so as to not accidentally watch it while channel surfing.
no problem*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 11:25am.
I have never had a problem ignoring Maddow, but who is this guy, O'Donnell?
He is someone who is no way related to Christine, but...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 1:34pm.
he may someone who could be Rosie's kissing cousin.
BDS
Submitted by HudsonRiverGirl on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 12:00pm.
Looks like there is no half life for Bush Derangement Syndrome.
But then these folks have Tony Bennett to keep them informed.