CNN's Malveaux failed to challenge DeLay's assertion that Bush "held the line on spending"
SUMMARY: During a CNN interview about the effect of Karl Rove's resignation, Suzanne
Malveaux did not challenge Tom DeLay's claim that "[t]he president held the line
on spending," despite
the fact that, even though President Bush assumed office with a $125.3 billion
surplus, the Bush administration has run a deficit in every fiscal year of the
Bush presidency. Additionally, Malveaux did not note Rove's reported assertion
that his "biggest error" of the 2006 election cycle was "not working soon enough
to replace Republicans tainted by scandal," or point out that DeLay himself
remained in the House for several months following his indictment on money
laundering and conspiracy charges.
During an interview with former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) on the August 14 edition of CNN's The Situation Room about the effect of Karl Rove's resignation as White House deputy chief of staff, CNN White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux did not challenge DeLay's claim that "[t]he president held the line on spending and was very good at it." In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, on August 10, 2005, Bush signed into law a $286 billion, six-year transportation bill despite his earlier pledge to veto any bill that exceeded $256 billion. He later raised the limit to $284 billion -- still $2 billion lower than the final cost of the bill. Moreover, according to the Congressional Budget Office's Historical Budget Data, discretionary outlays rose to 7.8 percent of the gross domestic product in 2006, up from 6.3 percent in 1999 and 2000, and 6.5 percent in 2001, under the Clinton administration. As Media Matters has previously documented, Bush assumed office with a $125.3 billion surplus for fiscal year 2001 (which began October 1, 2000). According to the standardized budget, which includes adjustments such as cyclical fluctuations, the government has run a deficit in every fiscal year of Bush's presidency, including $318 billion in 2005 and $248 billion in 2006. Nevertheless, Bush did not veto a single spending bill during the first six years of his administration, a period in which the House was controlled by Republicans and during which the Senate was controlled by Republicans for all but 18 months.
Additionally, Malveaux did not ask DeLay about Rove's reported assertion (subscription required) regarding the 2006 election, in which Democrats regained control of the House and Senate, that, as Wall Street Journal editorial page editor Paul Gigot paraphrased, his "biggest error" was "not working soon enough to replace Republicans tainted by scandal," even though DeLay himself remained in the House of Representatives for several months following his indictment on money laundering and conspiracy charges. Malveaux also did not mention DeLay's indictment.
From Gigot's August 13 commentary discussing his interview with Rove:
A big debate among Republicans these days is who bears more blame for 2006 -- Messrs. Bush and Rove, or the behavior of the GOP Congress. Mr. Rove has no doubt. "The sense of entitlement was there" among Republicans, he says, "and people smelled it." Yet even with a unified Democratic Party and the war, he argues, it was "a really close election." The GOP lost the Senate by its 3,562 vote margin of defeat in Montana, and in the House the combined margin in the 15 seats that cost control was 85,000 votes.
A prominent non-Beltway Republican recently gave me a different analysis, arguing that the White House made a disastrous decision to "nationalize" the election last autumn; this played into Democratic hands and cost numerous seats.
"I disagree," Mr. Rove replies. "The election was nationalized. It was always going to be about Iraq and the conduct of Republicans." He says Republican Chris Shays and Independent-Democrat Joe Lieberman survived in Connecticut despite supporting the war, while Republicans who were linked to corruption or were complacent lost. His biggest error, Mr. Rove says, was in not working soon enough to replace Republicans tainted by scandal.
DeLay was indicted on charges of conspiracy to violate the Texas election code on September 28, 2005, and on money laundering and conspiracy charges on October 3, 2005. A December 6, 2005, New York Times article reported that an appellate judge "left standing charges of money laundering and conspiracy to launder money" against DeLay and his two alleged co-conspirators, "Republican fund-raisers John D. Colyandro and James W. Ellis," but threw out a separate charge against the three of conspiracy to violate the election code. The state appealed the decision, and on June 27, 2007, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the state's highest court for criminal cases), in a 5-4 vote, upheld the decision to throw out the election code conspiracy charges, the subject of the September 2005 indictment. Despite his indictment in 2005, DeLay waited until April 4, 2006, to announce his resignation from the House and served his last day on June 9, 2006.
As Media Matters has noted, the media, including CNN and The Politico, have a record of ignoring DeLay's indictment despite the seeming relevance of the issue to their reports.
From the August 14 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
MALVEAUX: As we know, Karl Rove resigned yesterday, announcing that he was stepping down -- clearly, a good friend of yours, a good colleague. About a year ago, he said he was considering, with the president -- they sat down and talked about the right time for him to leave.
Around that time, as well, there have been a lot of things that have not worked well for Karl Rove: the CIA leak investigation -- found to be one of the leakers, not legally charged, obviously -- and losing control of Congress to the Democrats. Was there a point where he was more of a political liability to the administration?
DeLAY: Well, Suzanne, you can't put all that on Karl Rove.
I think we all had a part to play in the losses in 2006. And Karl Rove -- this whole CIA leak thing has proven to be nothing. No one was charged with a crime. Libby was found guilty of something that had nothing to do with the crime of leaking the identity of a CIA operative.
MALVEAUX: But one of the things that some White House officials were saying at the time is that he had become a distraction, that perhaps he wasn't charged with anything -- obviously, you're right -- but that he had become somewhat of a distraction.
DeLAY: Well, that's the strategy of the Democrats. This whole criminalization of politics, that's the new level of politics now that the Democrats have exhibited.
They can't beat you at the ballot box, so they try to beat you in a jury box. They have no ideas and no agenda, so they try to destroy you and put you in jail. That's the new strategy of the Democrats.
And Karl Rove, being the strong individual that he is, stood up to them, stood for what's right and what's good for the country and for his president.
[...]
MALVEAUX: Want to go -- quick wrap-up here -- back to Karl Rove: obviously, a lot on his plate. He was really at the center of a lot that happened at the White House.
But, also, immigration reform died. Social Security reform died. What kind of grade would you give Rove walking out of the White House?
DeLAY: Well, you have got to point to successes, too, you know.
MALVEAUX: Obviously.
DeLAY: The president held the line on spending and was very good at it. The president cut taxes without one Democrat vote and spurred this economy.
They can't beat you at the ballot box
That's one.
so they try to beat you in a jury box
Two.
They have no ideas and no agenda,
Threeeee...
they try to destroy you and put you in jail
And four.
That's the new strategy of the Democrats.
Five.
Karl Rove, being the strong individual that he is
Six.
[Karl Rove] stood for what's right and what's good for the country
Seven aaaand eight.
Four sentences. Eight lies. I gotta admit, the man is skilled.
Suzanne Malveaux did not challenge Tom DeLay's claim that "[t]he president held the line on spending,"
She is a lousy reporter and again on my e-mail list.
How she could allow that little weasel to lie.
Federal spending has grown twice as fast under Junior as under Clinton
Federal spending has increased 33% since 2001 from 1,863 billion to 2,470 billion
In 2005 inflation-adjusted federal spending neared $22,000 per household, the highest level since WWII.
www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/upload/83722_1.pdf
I don't understand how these people can even be called "reporters."
As for Delay, I like Lincoln's saying about a crooked Congressman of his day "the only thing he wouldn't steal is a red-hot stove."
The most disappointing thing about "the Media" is that none of the reporters or commentators ask hard questions or challenge the ovbious lies being told on camera. Liars are so used to being given a pass that they feel they can say anything without being called on it. The segment of the country who does NOT watch Bill O'Reilly or the rest are not getting the confrontation necessary to get at the TRUTH. Malveaux could had said, "Oh, HOW has the economy been spurred, Mr. DeLay? Explain that to the people who have to work two and three jobs just to feed their kids?" "And, while we're at it, WHOSE taxes were cut?"
Great point Donald...
It's take some "confrontation" to highlight the lies and absolute garbage of a blockhead like Tom Delay.
Malveau is nothing but a weak, corporate hooker, and Bush enabler.
And no mention of the numerous hikes to the debt limit. That's a pretty good indicator of fiscal irresponsibility as well.
George W. Bush is about the as fisically conservative as MC Hammer, one of the primary reasons I didn't vote for him in '04 and dropped the "R" from my voter registration and replaced it with an "I".
Hey, not so fast. I'm sure we can find something that Bush even reduced spending on...like school lunches for poor kids, veterans' health benefits...something!
Don't forget, that in those numbers the spending for Iraq and Afghanistan aren't included in the budget, and the deficits, so the REAL cost is actually higher by leaps and bounds.
America, break Bush's credit card or we will be paying for his Bush IT til the end of our grandchildren's college days.
Bush 'held the line on spending" like he restored Dignity to the White House and got us out of the business of Nation-building and "jawboned" the oil cartels into dropping prices.
DeLay's right- the President did do something without the help of a single opposition vote, and what he did spurred the economy. But he means President CLINTON, and the thing he did was the tax increase of 1993. Not a single Republican voted for it, and it was the number one reason for the great economy of the late-90s and the balanced budget, both of which were punted by our current Chimp in Chief.
"But he means President CLINTON, and the thing he did was the tax increase of 1993. Not a single Republican voted for it, and it was the number one reason for the great economy of the late-90s and the balanced budget"
You've got to be kidding me! That's the funniest thing I've heard in a while! So tax INCREASES help the economy? You obviously haven't taken any economics classes. Taking money OUT OF THE ECONOMY always slows down the economy. In Clinton's case he also cut taxes on capital gains which helped to spur the economy, and he benefited from the rapid growth in the internet sector and other areas.
The difference is that Clinton's tax policy helped the middle class.
Bush's tax policy has helped no one but the rich and connected.
The stats show that Bush's tax cuts actually made the tax code more progressive, which means that the rich now pay a larger percentage of the overall taxes than they did before Bush's tax cuts. The lower and middle classes received a larger reduction in their MARGINAL TAX RATES than the rich did. The rich just ended up getting the most overall money back because they paid the most in taxes to begin with.
"Taking money OUT OF THE ECONOMY always slows down the economy."
You're either kidding or not thinking. When government spends money garnered from taxes, where do you think the money goes, into a washer and dryer located on the dark side of the moon? It goes back into the economy. Why do think wars are so good for the economy, it increases government spending, thereby boosting the economy.
It's government corruption around spending that hurts the economy (think lobbyists, oil swindlers, corporate welfare, sweet heart deals, bribery, earmarks, etc) otherwise it is way too simplistic a statement to state taxation which leads to government spending negatively impacts the economy.
Why is Delay given a forum on TV?
"They can't beat you at the ballot box, so they try to beat you in a jury box. They have no ideas and no agenda, so they try to destroy you and put you in jail"
When you break the law, you face the jury box. When you're guilty, you go to jail.
The hypocrisy here is overwhelming when this is compared to what Delay and his party did to Clinton.
I agree with Mary/59 above. How DO these people call themselves reporters? And WHY should Tom DeLay be on any respectable program or national media network?
His presence has nothing to do with being "fair and balanced", rather more as "how much controversy can we conjure up to keep our network alive?"
If anyone wants to read a reasonable book BY A REPUBLICAN ECONOMIST, by the way, the should read Bruce Bartlett's book, "Imposter", about Bush's mishandling of the economy and the economic future of the country.
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
Somebody's Slow At Seeing Things
I have been posting and blogging about the conservative bias for at least a year or more. From reading many of the comments for this story, others have been also letting the world know how bias CNN, MSNBC have become.
When I try to speak of CSPAN's Washington Journal's conservative bias, everyone and their mother jump to the program's defense. Nevertheless, there is a large right wing slant of cabal news that has given the conservatives a huge edge. Now the Republicans have the Executive Branch, the Judicial Branch, and the unofficial Media Branch of power institutions. It is a power advantage we have one chance to even out in the next election.
Our political system is in need of checks and balance. Currently, this one sided power disadvantage has created a crisis in our government. The conservatives , through bad politics, corruption and sex scandals have become very unpopular with the American people. Although they have released a very complex strategy to counter their decline in public confidence, they need to do something about the up and coming losses for the 2008 elections. Their power advantage can be wiped out should the Democrats grab a veto proof congress and senate as well as the presidency. The Republicans are running from Bush and pulling out all markers. They need to slow the momentum of the Democrats.
Here is an example of how the Washington Post tried to help the Bush administration frame the run up to the up and coming Iranian War after White House officials designated the Revolutionary Guard global terrorist:
The Post is trying to note the Democratic congress is responsible for the aggressive stance. By default, we are in a war with Iran because we are in a war against terror. The point here is not only does the broadcast media have allegiances with the right, the paper media also tends to promote conservative ideologies.
I cannot stress how important the next election is for balance alone. If we don't stop the current drive for war, war and more war, we will be fighting for next 20 years, which is a reality I cannot live with.
Joseph