UPDATED: Will Blitzer ask GOP candidates comparable questions on Iraq, budget?
SUMMARY: Media Matters offers questions for CNN's Wolf Blitzer to ask Republican presidential candidates in the hope that candidates from both parties will be held to the same standard regarding the Iraq war and other topics.
During the June 3 Democratic presidential debate, moderator and CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer asked Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) about their May 24 votes against the Iraq war supplemental funding bill, adding that they have been accused "of playing politics with the lives of the troops." As Media Matters for America has documented, the media have employed differing standards in covering recent Democratic and Republican votes on Iraq war funding bills -- for instance, NBC and the Associated Press quoted Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) attacking Clinton and Obama for their May 24 votes but ignored McCain's own vote against an earlier version of the bill. Drawing from the questions Blitzer has already asked the Democrats, Media Matters for America offers the following comparable questions for Blitzer to ask the GOP candidates.
Iraq funding
During the June 3 debate, Blitzer asked Clinton: "Senator Clinton, you've voted in favor of every funding for the U.S. troops since the start of the war until now. And some are accusing and some others of playing politics with the lives of the troops. What is your response?" Blitzer then asked Obama: "Senator Obama, you did the same thing. Since you came in to the Senate you voted for the funding for the troops for this war until now. What's your answer?"
Blitzer was referring to Clinton's and Obama's May 24 votes against the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act. McCain attacked Clinton and Obama in a May 25 statement, claiming they "embrace[d] the policy of surrender by voting against funds to support our brave men and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan." ABC News senior national correspondent Jake Tapper reported on his blog on May 25 that McCain called Clinton's and Obama's votes "the height of irresponsibility." On March 29, however, McCain and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), another Republican presidential contender, voted against an earlier Iraq supplemental that was ultimately vetoed by President Bush.
Given Blitzer's questions to Clinton and Obama and the widespread media attention McCain's statements garnered, Media Matters suggests the following question for Blitzer to pose to McCain:
"Sen. McCain -- on May 25 you said Sens. Clinton and Obama 'embrace[d] the policy of surrender by voting against funds to support our brave men and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan,' in response to their votes against the Iraq war supplemental. You told ABC News they were 'the height of irresponsibility.' You and Sen. Brownback, however, also voted against an Iraq supplemental on March 29. Does that mean you and he 'embrace[d] the policy of surrender,' as you claimed Sens. Clinton and Obama did? Were your votes 'the height of irresponsibility'?"
National Intelligence Estimate
During the June 3 debate, Blitzer asked Clinton: "[D]o you regret voting to authorize the president to use force against Saddam Hussein in Iraq without actually reading the National Intelligence Estimate, the classified document laying out the best U.S. intelligence at that time?" Blitzer followed up on the question, asking Clinton: "So let me just be precise; that the question was, do you regret not reading the National Intelligence Estimate?" Blitzer also asked the same question of former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC): "Senator Edwards, you didn't read that National Intelligence Estimate either. Do you regret that?" As Media Matters has noted, the NIE, which was made available to all members of Congress before the 2002 vote to authorize the use of military force against Iraq, contained dissenting views from U.S. intelligence agencies regarding the existence of Iraq's purported weapons of mass destruction programs.
On the May 29 edition of CNN Newsroom, correspondent Mary Snow reported that McCain was also among the 94 senators who did not read the full NIE:
SNOW: A spokeswoman for a Republican Senator John McCain says, "Senator McCain was briefed on the NIE numerous times and read the Executive Summary."
Given Blitzer's questions to Clinton and Edwards, and the fact that his own network reported that McCain acknowledged not reading the NIE, Media Matters suggests the following question:
"Sen. McCain -- you have acknowledged that you did not read the National Intelligence Estimate prior to voting to allow the president to use force against Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Do you regret not reading the National Intelligence Estimate before voting to authorize a war?"
Spending
During the June 3 debate, Blitzer asked the Democratic candidates several questions regarding the costs of their healthcare proposals, and how they will be paid. In response to Clinton's statement that "we have to lower costs, improve quality and cover everybody," Blitzer asked: "And -- and Senator Clinton, you can do that without raising taxes?" Blitzer asked New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson if he could implement "universal health care without raising taxes."
During the May 3 Republican debate, moderator and MSNBC host Chris Matthews asked for each candidate "to mention a tax you'd like to cut, in addition to the Bush tax cuts, keeping them in effect." Each candidate offered a tax they would cut or eliminate, in addition to extending Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts in effect.
Assuming that Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would expire in 2010, the Congressional Budget Office forecast a $172 billion federal budget deficit for 2007, and continued deficits until at least 2012. However, the CBO found that the deficits will go on longer and be far greater should the tax cuts be extended and if "lawmakers continued to provide relief from the" alternative minimum tax (AMT). According to the CBO: "Combined, those policy changes -- and associated debt-service costs -- would produce a deficit of $328 billion (1.9 percent of GDP) in 2012 and a cumulative deficit over the 2008-2017 period of $4.2 trillion (2.4 percent of GDP)." This scenario was envisioned by McCain, who said in response to Matthews' question that the AMT has "got to be repealed," and by Giuliani, who said the AMT "has to be reduced."
Media Matters therefore suggests the following question for Blitzer to ask the candidates:
You've all indicated that, as president, you would cut taxes in addition to keeping President Bush's tax cuts in effect. How do you plan to pay for these tax cuts, keeping in mind that the Congressional Budget Office projects over $4 trillion in deficits from 2008 to 2017, should the president's tax cuts be extended and the alternative minimum tax reduced?
Former presidents*
"If you are elected president, how, if at all, would you use former President George W. Bush in your administration?"
McCain should have no trouble with the question about his different votes on war funding.As many of his fans here have pointed out, it's all about the timelines.
That is, like most Republicans, he'll spend the money as long as there's no limit atttached.
Or he'll be absent for the vote. Old boy doesn't show up much anymore.
"That is, like most Republicans, he'll spend the money as long as there's no limit atttached."
While it's interesting, and revealing, that you handily "forget" the 40 years of deficit spending brought to you by the Democratic party until 1994, at which point the new GOP-controlled congress cut spending, it's also pretty lame.
Typical, but lame.
That's funny, I think the president, not the congress, balanced the budget in the 90s.
How shall we settle this? Let's see...in 2001, the president changed and the congress didn't, and the big deficits came roaring back. It's almost like those giant tax cuts for the rich had something to do with it.
Tell me what happened to that budget-balancing congress in 2001.
Steve,
Since you're new to politics (welcome!), please keep in mind that the House writes the appropriation bills. In other words the House spends the money. The prez can only sign off on it, or veto it.
Clinton wanted nothing to do with lower spending in the 90's, he was forced into it by the GOP congress. How do we know that? Clinton and the Democrats controlled the WHouse, Senate and House for two whole years in '93-94 and spending didn't go down at all.
As to the "balanced budget" nonsense (projections on paper; there never was any such thing as a balanced budget), that was just the result of a standoff between Clinton and Gingrich. Bubba and Newt couldn't decide on how to waste, er, spend our tax dollars, and so for a brief while they didn't spend much. Hence the lower deficit. Without the tax cut for the rich (Clinton and congress' capital gains tax cut) which brought in a huge amount of revenue, they wouldn't have been able to pretend the budget was balanced even briefly.
Howdy, Roger and welcome to Media Matters For America! Just a word of advice pardner, we folks round these parts don't a-cotton to no mealy-mouthed mongrels. So afore you go spinnin' them repubican talkin points faster than Deadeye Dick's six-gun in a roomful a lawyers, you might wanna watch your back cause some of these boys here in Brock City like Tex and Solon and that dude from Huntington Beach in Californy got some powerful short tempers, and you might just wind up gettin a bust in the chops (in a manner of speakin!) Oh an here's a lil ol thing I seen on them internets that says your thing was a big ol lie! http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/Budget2000/surplus.html So like I said, pardner, you better practice some straight shootin', else one a them boys's likely to show you the meaning of hospitality, Brock City-style!
Chumpevil,
1. Huntington is the guy who decided that I'm "not ready" for this site based on the fact that we disagree over whether or not Chris Matthews is a liberal.
2. People that supernaturally closed-minded are a waste of time, but it's cute that you take him seriously.
3.As for political newbies, when you can find a source that wasn't put together by Clinton's staffers (how amateurish is this site?), we'll have more to talk about.
4. If your post was an attempt at humor, do keep your day job.
5. Are you guys calling yourselves progressives or liberals this week? I realize the L word is a bit scary for you, but you're not fooling anyone with the word 'progressive'. Well, you've fooled 90% of America's media sources, who have never asked why you won't call yourselves liberal anymore, and whom you seem to think are conservative.
6. So what did you think of tonights GOP debate?
Short answer? No.
One liner.......NOPE !
my question is why cnn and other media promoters are able to tier the candidates. Actually, I'm beginning to tear as well. maybe, cnn, fox, the ny times doesn't have all the answers all the time.
Money, Don. The sooner the second tier candidates like Ron Paul and Chris Dodd get out of the race, the sooner the debates will mean something to more Americans, and be worth more to the advertisers, and thus the networks.
In line with the question on how the democrats planned on using Bill Clinton in their administration, I would like to hear the republican response to how they planned on using President George W. Bush in their administration.
How will the candidates USE George W. Bush in their Administrations? Good question.
Even BETTER question: How will you USE George W. Bush and his Administration cronies ... Dick Cheney, etc. ... in your CAMPAIGNS???
Sitting presidents, the HEAD OF THEIR PARTY, will bring the enormous power of encumbancy to the table as they campaign for the candidates of their party, and the bully pulpit as well. How will the GOPers be harnessing that asset in 2008?
(Cheney, of course, will hold "SECRET" and closed fundraisers, but that's not campaigning for candidates. That's being a bag man, collecting his share for the BILLIONS the government has lavished on big oil, big pharma, big defense ... so that doesn't count.)
Top Ten ways the GOP is likely to use GWB after his term expires:
10) Food taster. 9) Campaign brochure folder. 8) Door stop. 7) Liaison to God. 6) Chief cake baker and delivery boy to Scooter and Delay in the pen. 5) Brush clearer. 4) Cheerleader. 3) Toad exterminator. 2) Nukular Linguist. And the number one way the GOP is likely to use GWB after his term expires:
1) Example.
Well I sort of think that is a silly question because Bush is not respected in the world, Clinton is. I believe sensable Republicans would use Clinton over Bush. Just like Bushie has asked Clinton for help in the Tsunami and Katrina and represent America at Yeltsins funeral.
of course not, and will he challenge the status quo? Of course not!
Will he ask why it's ok to oppose abortion here, but approve the killing of children overseas?
Will he ask why nearly 2 million have been killed in Iraq since 1991?
Will he ask about American foreign policy - and the blowback that always comes of it?
Will he ask why the war in Iraq can be waged without a Declaration of War from Congress as required by the constitution?
nope. and neither will anyone else in the media.
The time to end the Iraq war is now. Some further reading:
"Top-Ten Reasons to Get Out of Iraq. Now!" - click here
I bet you won't hear one question from Blitz-butt that even comes close to the tough questions he asked of Clinton, Obama and Edwards concerning the Iraq war.
It'll be all softball stuff. Wolfie just goes all soft and watery when he's in front of the Cons.
I hope Media Matters follows this up tomorrow.
You've been proven wrong by both of Wolf's first two questions.
Why do Democrats always assume the worst from everyone?
Only of Repugnants and their allied Corporate Media: the balance of the nation is pretty OK.