CNN "surpris[ed]" at Dem reaction to Bush's "conciliatory" tone, effort to "press the reset button"
SUMMARY: On CNN's The Situation Room, Wolf Blitzer noted that Harry Reid took "a new jab at President Bush on Iraq, despite [Bush's] talk of bipartisanship," while Suzanne Malveaux uncritically reported that Bush "vow[ed] several times not only to work with Republicans, but Democrats as well" and John King asserted that the Democratic reaction to Bush' press conference was "surprising." These statements ignored reports -- including those by King and Jeff Greenfield on the same edition of The Situation Room -- that undermine the credibility of Bush's pledge of bipartisanship.
On the December 20 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer said that incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) took "a new jab at President Bush on Iraq, despite [Bush's] talk of bipartisanship" at Bush's December 20 press conference. Similarly, chief national correspondent John King asserted that the Democratic reaction to the press conference was "surprising" shortly after reporting that "[w]ith Democrats poised to take control of Congress, the president sounds more conciliatory and promises bipartisanship," and White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux uncritically reported that Bush "vow[ed] several times not only to work with Republicans, but Democrats as well, to come up with some sort of Iraq policy that is successful" and characterized the press conference as "a chance for the president to press the reset button."
Reporting that Bush "vow[ed]" to "work with Republicans [and] Democrats," Malveaux left out the fact, as reported by King moments later, that Bush "rejects Democratic calls for a timeline to bring troops home." As Media Matters noted, Blitzer also asserted that that Bush is "weighing the options" for achieving stability in Iraq and that "Democrats are welcome to weigh in as well" despite King's reporting.
As Media Matters also noted, Blitzer later said that Bush "offered an olive branch to Democrats" because Bush "said he supports a minimum wage hike, and he's open to compromise over Social Security and immigration reform." However, Bush's minimum wage plan linked a $2.10 increase to proposed tax cuts, which as a December 21 Washington Post article noted, Democrats do not support.
On the same edition of The Situation Room, CNN senior political analyst Jeff Greenfield gave an additional reason for skepticism at Bush's "olive branch" to Democrats. Greenfield reported that President Bush has been far more partisan than his father: While Congress under President George H.W. Bush was "solidly in Democratic hands ... [t]his George Bush had Republican majorities, narrow though they were, for most of his first six years. So on key bills like the prescription drug plan, he prevailed because of strong party discipline. And, particularly in the House of Representatives, bipartisan cooperation was rarely a factor."
Bush similarly talked about bipartisanship and conciliation shortly after the 2006 congressional election in November, but as Media Matters noted, he was simultaneously taking action characterized by a New York Times article as "provocative." A November 16 New York Times article noted that four of the six judicial nominees Bush renominated after the election drew opposition from congressional Democrats.
Furthermore, according to a December 21 Washington Post article on Bush's December 20 press conference, an unnamed Bush aide has essentially acknowledged that Bush's consistent statements that he deferred to the generals in setting troop levels in Iraq were lies. A recent example of Bush saying that the generals set troop levels occurred on October 25 when Bush told reporters, "I will send more troops to Iraq if General Casey says, 'I need more troops in Iraq to achieve victory.' " However, according to the Post article, although "Bush has traditionally paid public deference to the generals, saying any decisions on moving U.S. forces in the region would depend on their views," an unnamed Bush aide said that Bush has "never left the decision to commanders." In essence, CNN journalists characterized Bush's press conference as a chance to wipe the slate clean -- "press the reset button," in Malveaux's words -- and questioned the Democrats' reaction to Bush's claims to welcome their input on Iraq on the same day that an administration official acknowledged that Bush's claims over the past 3 1/2 years to defer to his generals were false. Given that Bush has apparently been misrepresenting the degree to which he considered the generals' input on troop levels, will those same CNN journalists cast a more skeptical light on Bush's claims to welcoming input from Democrats -- or that of anyone who has criticized his policy on Iraq?
From the 4 p.m. ET segment of the December 20 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
MALVEAUX: Well, Wolf, really, the final news conference is a chance for the president to press the reset button, to give his New Year's resolution, if you will. The president vowing several times not only to work with Republicans but Democrats as well to come up with some sort of Iraq policy that is successful, but also one that the American people can get behind. Now, we heard the president earlier today saying all options are still on the table, including sending more U.S. troops. That is an unpopular prospect among the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But apparently, he is already laying the groundwork -- the president calling to expand the armed forces overall. And that is a move -- very significant, here -- that flies in the face of his departing secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, who had advocated for a leaner fighting force.
[...]
BLITZER: Meantime, the top Senate Democrat is taking a new jab at President Bush on Iraq, despite his talk of bipartisanship during his news conference.
Incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid issued a statement saying: "It's heartening to see that President Bush has reversed his position, rejected the failed Rumsfeld doctrine, and heeded Democratic calls to increase the size of the military." Reid goes on to say, quote, "Unfortunately, it is troubling to see that he still does not understand the need for urgent change in Iraq."
[...]
KING: With Democrats poised to take control of Congress, the president sounds more conciliatory and promises bipartisanship. But he rejects Democratic calls for a timeline to bring troops home. And as he considers sending even more troops into Iraq, Mr. Bush seems mindful of the legacy debate.
BUSH: The true history of any administration is not going to be written until long after the person is gone. And it's just impossible for short-term history to accurately reflect what has taken place.
KING: Not so impossible, though, to reflect on this year.
BUSH: 2006 was a difficult year for our troops and the Iraqi people.
KING: A difficult year for President Bush as well, Wolf. And one of the surprising things today was that you saw the Democratic statements after the news conference. The president's not ready to say yet what he's going to do in Iraq. And, so, until then, the Democrats are going to continue to say his policy is a failure and that this president is not getting the message of the elections.
[...]
GREENFIELD: Of course, the first George Bush didn't have much choice. Congress was solidly in Democratic hands for his entire four years. By contrast, Ronald Reagan had a Republican Senate for six years and enough conservative Democrats in the House to let him form an ideological majority.
This George Bush had Republican majorities, narrow though they were, for most of his first six years. So on key bills like the prescription drug plan, he prevailed because of strong party discipline. And, particularly in the House of Representatives, bipartisan cooperation was rarely a factor.
I don't know if you guys realize this, but bipartisanship means that both sides give in a little and compromise. It doesn't mean that Democrats get whatever they want and Bush just signs off on it. That's what the Democrats want with the minimum wage bill and most other issues, even though Reid and Pelosi both said that they wanted "bipartisanship."
however to most politicians it means, "you give & I'll take."
After six years of one-party rule, Democrats are bing slammed for not being bipartisan?
I think the Democrats have been doing nothing but give for a long, long time. What they want to take is a long-overdue increase in the minimum wage. What bullies. Poor Bush.
Oh, give me a break.
Threats of filibusters = bipartisanship??????? Alternative programs, ideas instead of "NO WAY." Sure, there has been a little give and take, but I've also seen a lot of dug in heels over the past several years (from both sides) with very little "Let's discuss the problem and find a solution."
"I think the Democrats have been doing nothing but give for a long, long time."
That's ridiculous. The Democrats have been doing nothing but obstruct for the last six years. They've filibustered many of Bush's judicial nominies, which was unheard of before they first did it a few years ago. They've filibustered all kinds of legislation such as cuts in the estate tax and drilling in ANWR. And they obstructed the entire effort to start personal accounts in Social Security. The Democrats haven't compromised on ANYTHING. I don't think the word compromise is even in their vocabulary.
Unheard of? Ever hear of Abe Fortas? The GOP TRIED to filibuster SEVERAL Clinton nominees but they couldnt pull it off. The GOP also kept a much larger percentage of Clinton judicial nominees from ever coming to a vote with blue slips. Bush has gotten a higher percentage of his nominees than Clinton did. Sure nothing but obstruction on the Patriot act, on the Iraq war, the Tax cuts. You have a rich fantasy life but your delusions have no relation whatsoever with reality.
"The GOP TRIED to filibuster SEVERAL Clinton nominees but they couldnt pull it off."
That's because there was enough sane and moderate Republicans that it didn't happen. You can't say the same about the Democrats. There's only about two or three moderate Democrats who refused to filibuster Bush's nominees. The term moderate Democrat is kind of an oxy-moron these days. Also, the Dems did block the Patriot Act until they got a couple provisions knocked off and made it weaker. I can still remember Harry Reid bragging, "We just killed the Patriot Act." If that's not obstructionism, then I don't know what is.
they made it weaker or they killed it?
They filibustered the original version. They then forced Bush to repeal parts of it. That made it weaker. The amended version was later passed overwhelmingly.
Here is the timeline of the ORIGINAL PATRIOT ACT
[link to thomas.loc.gov]
MAJOR ACTIONS: 10/23/2001 Introduced in House 10/24/2001 Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 357 - 66 (Roll no. 398). 10/25/2001 Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 98 - 1. Record Vote Number: 313. 10/26/2001 Signed by President. 10/26/2001 Became Public Law No: 107-056 [Text, PDF]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ALL ACTIONS: 10/23/2001: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Intelligence (Permanent Select), Financial Services, International Relations, Energy and Commerce, Education and the Workforce, Transportation and Infrastructure, and Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. 10/23/2001: Referred to House Judiciary 10/23/2001: Referred to House Intelligence (Permanent Select) 10/23/2001: Referred to House Financial Services 10/23/2001: Referred to House International Relations 10/23/2001: Referred to House Energy and Commerce 10/23/2001: Referred to the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Chairman. 10/23/2001: Referred to House Education and the Workforce 10/23/2001: Referred to House Transportation and Infrastructure 10/23/2001: Referred to House Armed Services 10/23/2001 7:15pm: Mr. Sensenbrenner moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill. 10/23/2001 7:15pm: Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7159-7207) 10/23/2001 8:27pm: At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed. 10/24/2001 10:37am: Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H7224) 10/24/2001 11:03am: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 357 - 66 (Roll no. 398). (text of measure as passed House: CR 10/23/2001 H7159-7196) 10/24/2001 11:03am: Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection. 10/24/2001: Received in the Senate, read twice. 10/25/2001: Passed Senate without amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 98 - 1. Record Vote Number: 313. (consideration: CR S10990-11060) 10/25/2001: Message on Senate action sent to the House. 10/25/2001: Cleared for White House. 10/25/2001: Presented to President. 10/26/2001: Signed by President. 10/26/2001: Became Public Law No: 107-56.
NO fillibuster the REAUTHORIZATION was fillibustered and cloture was reached. PLEASE try to have some dim idea what you are talking about someday.
"NO fillibuster the REAUTHORIZATION was fillibustered and cloture was reached"
That's what I was talking about genius. I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE REAUTHORIZATION! Also, cloture was not reached on the reauthorization. The Democrats successfully blocked cloture on the reauthorization of the Patriot Act. They forced Bush to get rid of a few key provisions that weakened the act. They then passed the amended version overwhelmingly.
...that Democrats are Republicans achieved unanimous consent to reauthorization as a result of some concessions, i.e., a compromise!
Ummm...what was your complaint again?
There weren't any Democrats who wanted to completely repeal the Patriot Act. They wanted to get rid of a few provisions in the act. The Dems through a hissy fit and Bush eventually caved in. Bush caved in all the way to their demands, and the Dems didn't give an inch. No compromise there.
There was bipartisan support for opposing reauthorization unless you think the Chamber of Commerce, American Conservative Union and American Library Association are all Dem front groups they all opposed reauthorization without allowing a couple of the provisions to expire under the sunshine clause which were in the original bill. NOT as you said to REPEAL them but to allow them to expire in the timeframe the original bill called for. Even then they didnt do either, they reauthorized those provisions with a NEW expiration date of 2009. THAT is bipartisan. The claim that the opposition got everything they wanted is just flat WRONG. Here take a gander
[link to 72.14.253.104]
This is typical of your posts. You mischaracterize, overstate make baseless assertions that often are outright WRONG. You dont know the facts and then make blatantly biased assertions based on things you say like this that are absolutly and without dispute WRONG, not conforming to reality.
undercuts your original assertion, Gump. You SAID the dems have done nothing but obstruct for SIX YEARS. Yet the original version sailed through and only identifiied problems after five years of the act being used were held up by dems LATER. That is pretty far from obstruction to give the benifit of the doubt THEN act on identified problems. What YOU think were key provisions or whether it was weakened in ANY meaningful way is irrelevant and certainly arguable.
There is no such thing as a moderate Republican there are plenty of moderate Dems. Your point would only be valid if you could show that the quality of the nominees was the same, since you cant you have no point. Even if your point were valid this is another case of you moving the goalposts of your argument. You didnt SAY Republicans have never filibustered, which would also be wrong see Abe Fortas, but you said it was UNHEARD of. Since they TRIED to filibuster I guess they must have heard of it somewhere. Your claim about the patriot act is absurd. It ORIGINALLY sailed through with virtually no opposition and was passed the day AFTER it was submitted since you said it was SIX YEARS of obstruction this shows, along with the rest of my example shows that your claim is ludicrous on the face of it. The fact that after FIVE years of living with the patriot act Dems wanted changes is not obstruction it was tried they saw problems they wanted fixed THAT is not obstruction it is a disagreement.
From the point that Republicans took control of the house under Newt and their contract for America they did nothing but obstruct, including impeachment over nothing.
Millions wasted my Ken Starr and as a result of their obstructionism they allowed our government to shut down to make a point that it was their way or no way.
the democrats are not obstructing, they are trying to have a say and prevent the doomed consequences of the many missteps and bad decisions made by this current administration and the ignoramus who tries to be president and has run roughshod over this country, the constitution and the other branches of government while bringing his new brand of fascism to America and trashing our reputation around the globe. Yeah, stopping that requires whatever means necessary.
Alito, Gonzales, Meyer, Bolton, all bad decisions but 3 of 4 got through so get your facts correct regarding his nominies(sic) - it's nominees
Well anything but in this context that bipartisanship doesnt mean Bush says I will work together with Democrats who get to do things the way I want.
I'll talk about one particular case where Bush is giving in. I'm sure that Bush doesn't really want to raise the minimum wage at all, so he's giving in quite a bit. He's definetely not getting everything he wants there. He's giving the Dems the $2.10 increase in the minimum wage that they want, and all he wants is tax breaks for small businesses to go with it. What's wrong with giving tax breaks to family run businesses and the like? I guess Democrats are just opposed to tax cuts in all circumstances.
Also, quit with the personal attacks. It's getting old.
or he knows it's inevitable?
However when YOU quit I will stop also. That is when you stop the condescension like THIS: I don't know if you guys realize this, but bipartisanship means that both sides give in a little and compromise. It doesn't mean that Democrats get whatever they want and Bush just signs off on it, and THIS: The term moderate Democrat is kind of an oxy-moron these days. YOU started with the insults right away so snivelling NOW that you are getting back what you give out is pathetic.
Your example is not really compelling. He KNOWS both the reality of its passing and the political downside of vetoing it
Once again, I didn't personally attack you there, and I never will. I made a comment about Democrats in general. If you don't like it. Tough. It wasn't a personal attack in any way. I attack the liberal ideology and the Democratic Party. I leave the personal stuff out of it. Maybe you should do the same.
You want to stay in this flamewar bring it on. I can take it. I am not the one snivelling that I am being picked on. THAT crybaby conservative would be YOU. WWWAAAAAAHHHH its ok for ME to attack liberals but when you treat ME the way I treat you its soooo mean. Grow up. Just because you generalize the attacks doesnt mean they arent personal. Just because YOU are dumb enough to THINK you get to frame how things are done or seen doesnt mean that in anyway conforms to reality which you OBVIOUSLY know very little about.
Why do you have to be so angry all the time? You guys won the election. You should be happy for a change.
"I attack the liberal ideology and the Democratic Party."-TD
In a stunning reversal the truth detector sells out his conservative ideology of rugged individuality for a more convenient and broad collective target of ideas.
Pictures at eleven.
"Also, quit with the personal attacks. It's getting old."
-----
Every time you do it your hypocrisy gets even older.
Remember, it was Karl Rove who said, "Bi-partisanship is just another word for 'date rape.'"
That's the GOP version.
"Every time you do it your hypocrisy gets even older."
Then give me an example of me personally attacking a particular poster here.
>>"Also, quit with the personal attacks. It's getting old."<<
Quit with things like "the word 'compromise' isn't even in the Democrats' vocabulary", and "all they do is obstruct". You're dishing-out the disrespect and getting it right back, just like you deserve.
I'm not dis-respecting you personally. Never have, never will. I won't stoop to your level. I made a comment about the Democratic Party in general. I never made any personal attacks on you or any other posters here.
You bless us with little gems of bipartisan outreach like "The Democrats haven't compromised on ANYTHING." Which makes you, basically, a liar. Nothing personal.
That means something I dont. Since YOU dont get to tell me how to take things its meaningless and since YOU dont get to frame how things are done the options are simple you keep attacking my ideology I will continue to take them personally and return serve. I know you conservatives THINK you get to frame every debate and demand that WE allow YOU to set the terms but in reality that just isnt going to happen. So continue to pathetically snivel like a little girl that WE are mean while YOU keep attacking US. The hypocrisy is sickening whether you see it or not.
was removed from the dictionary ages ago. So was the word compromise. These days it's every side for itself. Our way OR no way.
Translation: SCREW the citizens of the US who, quite frankly, have NO voice because OUR leaders would rather squabble endlessly than actually get anything accomplished...
"Our" Prez proves time and time again that he is a party hack, yet the press gives him the benefit of conciliatory outreach. Why are they not willing to editorially express disdain for this guy? Oh yeah, their corporations benefit from his presidency.
"The conventions of objectivity make it very difficult to say that something is a lie."
What a bomb-thrower.
"The president vowing several times not only to work with Republicans but Democrats as well..."
"...his [President Bush's] talk of bipartisanship during his news conference"
"the president sounds more conciliatory and promises bipartisanship"
It's not as though statements such as those are not believable, or that they don't describe a better possible ("bipartisan") working relationship between the parties...
...but use you head and come to your senses... when was the last time the president displayed such a "bipartisan" working relationship as is described by those statements?
At any time during the four-plus year history (since the administration announced it's intentions to ivade) of Iraq?
Has the administration been "bipartisan" in stonewalling Congressal Democrats' efforts in their Constitutional obligation to investigate the FALSIFIED 'pre-invasion intelligence'?
Let's reach further into the record... how about on Judicial nominees, has the president been "bipartisan" and "conciliatory"?
I think you know what I mean... I think we can believe anything we like, but it's always best to stay sensible, and make decisions based on the demonstrated events of the past, over the rhetoric of a promised future...
...promises that sound so foreign to me, as to be unbelievable.
Re-read the statements and see if they sound like they're truly describing the president, or are instead just the smoke and spin that is all this administration (and it's many "media" hacks) are made of... a smoke and a spin that is all they have ever been made of, during the four-plus year history of Iraq.
I think the concluding quote of the item to be something better on which to measure the "bipartisan" and "conciliatory" rhetoric:
"This George Bush ...for most of his first six years ...he prevailed because of strong party discipline. And, particularly in the House of Representatives, bipartisan cooperation was rarely a factor."
[Yeah sure, I expect the president to be "bipartisan" and "conciliatory" with the new Congressional majority... about as much as I expect a dog who's never done anything except chit wherever he pleases, to suddenly start going on the paper... yeah, sure.]
.. it is probably a trap.
Is this the same guy that defined everyone to be either 'for them or against them'? Everyone not falling in line behind them as terrorist supporters?
And now they want to be friends?
In history it was normal for leaders to switch sides when the battle was going poorly and to sacrifice the common people. This is the same thing. They are down to the straw and that means they have to strech out a hand to their enemy.
And at the next chance they will again switch sides, shortly after inserting their dagger into your heart.
What is the worth of a word of honor from a liar?
Is highly reminiscent of those signs you see in bars saying "Please feel free to ask for credit, as our way of refusing is most polite".
Who ever said bipartsanship was a good thing? What's wrong with Democrats and Republicans having different views and fighting for them? I'm ready for the Republicans to dust off the ideas of limited government and fight like hell for those principals.
I love to point out how Republicans want to shrink government until its just small enough to fit into our bedrooms
The bully, after six years of beating up kids on the playground, is now face down under a pile of them. "Can't we all just get along?" he says. I guess he must be realizing that his "my way or the highway" strategy has just taken a turn for the worse.
Wow; does this guy have the Rush Limbaugh show straight-wired into his brain? I've seen some delusional partyline hacks puking up talking points before, but this guy is hilarious.
The Republican Congress deliberately crippled Clinton's presidency with endless witch hunts; since they gained the White House, they've treated Democrats with contempt. Now that their idiot President is up to his chin in blood and corruption, facing a Democratic Congress, they want to play nice? Sure...when monkeys fly out of my butt.
I agree with you, and the final straw when dealing with a bully you kick his butt so hard his unborn kids will feel it and the only way to wipe that smug smirk of his face is to impeach the mope.
The Democrats have decided not to impeach him, now that is bi-partisanship. I cringe whenever I see clips of his "the haves and the have mores" comments. Or his little comedy routine where he was looking around the dais and kept repeating (and laughing while doing it) "nope, no weapons of mass destruction here." This guy thinks that is funny, well our dead soldier's families don't.
I want to see Bush pushed out of the whitehouse like the scene in the movie The Jerk with Steve Martin. The title fits huh?
He has the entire country's ear, he can give us any message he wants and he tells us to shop! As if he needs to tell people to shop in December! He couldn't have said "hand out some blankets to poor people" or "send money to your favorite charity" or even "save your money American, it's the smart move!"
a lot about obstruction. His trolling and nonesense make most of these threads unreadable. If that's a personal attack, who cares. I don't have time to waste with babble.
The GOP will get bipartisanship when they admit they are fearmongering terrorists who seek control over the American people for totalitarian purposes, and the current party members are removed and replaced with centrists. Social Conservatism has no place in a progressively free nation, it is nothing but a threat to freedom.
These GOP terrorists couldn't buy my bipartisanship.