Media outlets uncritically reported Giuliani's misquotation of Clinton's view of free markets
SUMMARY: CBSNews.com and Newsday uncritically reported Rudy Giuliani's assertion during the May 15 Republican presidential debate that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said "that the unfettered free market is the most disastrous thing in modern America." In fact, Clinton said she agreed with the following quote, which she included in her book It Takes a Village: "The unfettered free market has been the most radically disruptive force in American life in the last generation." Explaining further, Clinton said "that the market is the driving force behind our prosperity ... but that it cannot be permitted just to run roughshod over people's lives as well."
In their coverage of the May 15 Republican presidential debate, CBSNews.com and Newsday uncritically reported former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani's assertion that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) "agreed" "that the unfettered free market is the most disastrous thing in modern America." However, Giuliani misrepresented what Clinton said. In fact, as a May 16 Bloomberg report noted: "In a 1996 C-Span interview, Clinton said she agreed with a quote she cited [sic] her book, 'It Takes a Village,' that 'The unfettered free market has been the most radically disruptive force in American life in the last generation.' Clinton also said in the interview 'that the market is the driving force behind our prosperity,' 'but that it cannot be permitted just to run roughshod over people's lives as well.' "
Additionally, in a May 15 article on the debate, The Politico's Jonathan Martin wrote that Giuliani "cit[ed] two Clinton quotes about the economy," without reporting that Giuliani had misrepresented Clinton's statement. A May 15 Hotline On Call post said Giuliani "gets props for directly criticizing Hillary Clinton," also without noting the misquotation.
Giuliani said during the debate:
"There's something, I think, really big at stake here. We're looking at a race here in which the leading Democratic candidate for president of the United States has said that the unfettered free market is the most disastrous thing in modern America. That's a quote -- or that's a quote she agreed with."
From Clinton's March 3, 1996, interview on C-SPAN's Booknotes:
BRIAN LAMB (host): There's a quote here. I want to ask you if you agree with this. This is from Alan Ehrenhalt, author of "The Lost City" -- you put it in your book. "The unfettered free market has been the most radically disruptive force in American life in the last generation."
CLINTON: I believe that. That's why I put it in the book. I think if you look at the argument we've had in our political life in the last several years, it's been a false debate. We've pitted the government against everything else. Well, I don't believe the government has had as big an impact as commercial television, as a lot of the decisions made in the marketplace about how we're going to pay and compensate people, about downsizing corporations and making workers more insecure. And I just believe that there's got to be a healthy tension among all of our institutions in society, and that the market is the driving force behind our prosperity, our freedom in so many respects to make our lives our own but that it cannot be permitted just to run roughshod over people's lives as well.
CBSNews.com and Newsday ran reports that reprinted Giuliani's misrepresentation of Clinton's statement on the free market without correcting it. In a May 16 CBSNews.com news analysis, senior political editor Vaughn Ververs wrote:
Under the microscope for some of his recent conflicting statement on abortion, Giuliani was asked to address the issue several times. He sought at one point to play down his support for abortion rights by broadening the question and raising the specter of what he called the Democratic Party's "leading presidential candidate" -- Hillary Clinton.
"There's something, I think, really big at stake here," said Giuliani. Without mentioning Clinton's name, he said she agreed that the "unfettered free market is the most disastrous thing in modern America" and claimed she favors increasing taxes. "There's such a stark difference there," said Guiliani [sic], "that this election in 2008 is going to make a very big difference about whether we go in that direction."
In a May 16 Newsday article, reporter Craig Gordon wrote:
As for Giuliani, he shot back not at his accusers but at the woman any one of them might have to face in November of next year, the Democratic senator from New York -- saying all on the stage should agree to look past differences to unite and beat back Clinton. Without mentioning her by name, Giuliani accused Clinton of believing that the free market is "disastrous" and that the government has to take money from citizens to spend on the common good.
I predict that the GOP apologists will argue that "disastrous" and "disruptive" are the same...just like they tried to argue that "create" and "invent" are the same...or that "Weapons Program Capabilities" are the same as "Weapons".
Or that invading another sovereign nation is a defensive move....
"Disastrous" v. "most radically disruptive"? The adjectives are equivalent semantically. I don't see why Mrs. Clinton shouldn't be requoted by Mr. Giuliani, albeit with one slightly misquoted (but accurate) adjective.
I fear that Giuliani will win this one; Hillary's argument is just too long and too nuanced for the knuckledraggers to comprehend.
Oh please, maybe "not the same" - but to parse words as this is hardly some misinformation. "The most disastrous thing in modern America", is pretty darn close to "the most disruptive force in American life in the last generation".
To scold Rudy, or the news outlets on this semantic nitpicking is ridiculous.
Sorry, I left out "radically" - even less of a difference now.
"To scold Rudy, or the news outlets on this semantic nitpicking is ridiculous. "
But don't you do this to MMFA on a daily basis?
Tommy, Rudy Guiliani basically falsely claimed that Hillary Clinton called the free market a disaster for America, when in fact Hillary Clinton was only agreeing with a quote that called it "disruptive" (which doesn't necessarily mean "disastrous," it merely just means it has made a huge impact), and had actually said the market was "prosperous" for America but can't be allowed to do whatever it wants. MMFA is purely justified here.
You also left out "And I just believe that there's got to be a healthy tension among all of our institutions in society, and that the market is the driving force behind our prosperity, our freedom in so many respects to make our lives our own but that it cannot be permitted just to run roughshod over people's lives as well." But then, so did Rudy, and that's the point MMFA is making.
Parse words? Like when some on the left claimed Bush was warned about the levees failing when in reality, the transcripts showed that the experts informing him warned only of surge waters TOPPING the levees. But then again, there is a huge difference between levee topping and levee failure, and very little difference in the meaing between what Guliani said and what Clinton said.
NO THERE ISNT. Topped levees fail. Levees are basically reinforced DIRT mounds, if topped they wash away and fail. Thats like saying there is a difference between puncturing a ballon and popping one.
Parsing?
I think it's "pretty well confirmed" that a double standard is being applied.
Sorry Tommy you lose.
A hurricane is a disaster, a thunderstorm is disruptive.
If you can't tell the difference don't leave home without an umbrella.
A hideous blouse is a disaster, a hideously worn blouse is disruptive.
Same thing.
See what I mean about conservatives and analogies? God bless 'em, it's not something they understand.
I know. We're just a bunch of clueless, one-note troglodytes living under the thumb of Karl Rove.
Oh, I wouldn't go that far. You just can't do analogies. That's okay...nobody's perfect.
Flat tire = disruptive. Bent axle = radically disruptive. Head-on collision = disastrous.
Conservatives have trouble with analogies...it's that whole "black and white thinking" problem.
Even looking at her exact quote, I still don't agree with it. Seems like an awfully broad brush statement.
Possibly. You can probably find economists who will argue it both ways. The point is that Giuliani has introduced a new Troglodyte talking point, which will further arouse the knuckledragging Republican base..."Hillary hates the free market!"
Nerzog,
Both sides engage in their own talking points.......the Democrats will and always have tried to hang the "unfettered free market with no regulation" on the backs of Republicans for years.
Perhaps the real debate is the meaning of the word "unfettered".
As I recall, it means there was nobody calling me up for favors, nobody's future to decide.
Thats what Joni said anyway. I love Court and Spark, I think its her best album
The unfettered free market is well on the way to resulting in corporate ownership of our government. I would argue that that is indee, disastrous.
Rent-seeking behavior on the part of corporations is a result of a bloated and corrupt government, with way too much power to be leveraged. No giant government implies lesser gains from lobbying. It's a two-way street.
It should also be pointed out that corporations are not necessarily a free-market construct.
Finally, I'm not sure where you're living, but I have yet to see an "unfettered" free market.
...and where should it be hung? That's been the Republican stance since back in the day, no regulation or so little regulation that it doesn't achieve the intended effect. For instance one of Bush’s policy revisions curtailed FDA regulation and things that were previously required by law were made voluntary. Guess what? incidents of food contamination are way up under the Bushies. I agree with Hilary Clinton's assessment 100%. The free markets are the corner stone of our economy but you have to monitor it to prevent abuses and ensure that it is operating fairly and responsibly. There is nothing radical about that.
I would hang the term on the Republicans too. I mean it is their term, they created it as a fundamentalist dogma to argue for unregulated capitalism.
I would also toss the term out as it has so many conservative conotations that is impossible to extricate ourselves from its conservative framing. When making the argument for a market that puts people before profits and protects peolple from harmful practices/products, I would use a more genuine term like moral economy.
Just my two cents.
Lying about oral sex in the Oval Office = disruptive.
Lying about oral sex in the Oval Office under oath = radically disruptive.
Lying about WMD and starting a war on false pretenses = disastrous.
I changed this , you may agree or disagree
Lying about oral sex in the Oval Office = Private Matter
Lying about oral sex in the Oval Office under oath = Disruptive
Lying about WMD and starting a war on false pretenses = Criminally disastrous.
I agree completely. I would add the following...
"Watching Bush, Cheney and Rove frogmarched out of the White House in handcuffs =Priceless.
Camapign commercial: HIllary hugging Arafat and his wife. Voiceover: Giuliani telling why he threw Arafat out of NYC - "We have to wake people up to the way this terrorist is being romaticized."
Good commercial, no?
Hillary Clinton took money from a guy on the FBI's Most Wanted Fugitive List, Ray Jinnah. That's an attractive credential.
Hillary Clinton took money from the guy before he made the FBI's list...a distinction too subtle for you, no?
I wonder: is it worse to TAKE money from a guy who is destined to be on the list, or to GIVE money to a guy who is destined to be on the list?
(Hint: think Hussein)
Do we really want an unfettered free market? I mean, I know the CATO crowd does but what about the other 95% of us who keep voting for labor, acounting and environmental laws?
I just have to say how impressed I am that the GOP candidates are using their "debate" time to take jabs at the Dems.Seems that they didn't have a whole lot to talk about otherwise.
I will say that Fox surprised me by actually asking some questions that, whilei not really tough, at least made some of the old guys uncomfortable.
I'm also surprised that Paul did so well in the text message Republican Idol voting.I thought he had effectively forfeited the nomination with his rational, adult and reality-based remarks about the war and 9/11.(Comments that Hannity today called "insane", confirming them as sensible).
Reliability of the text voting aside, could it be that the American public, even Republicans, have settled down a little and come around to looking at things more rationally?
Giuliani's response was good too. I think he was going for a resolute, tough-guy grimace, but came off like a petulant brat just told that his birthday party was over.Appealing to the hysterical bedwetting "patriots" by asking Paul to retract his remark. Whattapoosy.
"Take it back! Take it back! I'm running my whole campaign on the hero of 9/11 angle!"
Thanks for watching, Lefty, so I don't have to. I hope you're right, and I hope the voting wasn't an anomoly. It would be wonderful to think that jingoism is becoming inneffective.
Tommy can't tell the difference between a thunderstorm and a hurricane?
Why am I not surprised?
I don't see the big difference between what Giuliani said Clinton said, and what Clinton really said.
However, I agree with Clinton.
Yes, "free trade" IS running roughshod over us, Hillary. American labor, American citizens, are paying the price. And you voted for it, again and again and again. I think you should have read "your" book.
And thanks to you, Rudy, for championing the loss of manufacturing jobs, for selling out the American family for wage-slave labor abroad. Such wonderful people. Feel the love.