AP reported Rove attack on Democrats over Social Security, immigration without challenge
SUMMARY: An Associated Press article reported that Karl Rove, during an appearance on Fox News Sunday, "[b]lamed congressional Democrats for standing in the way of changing Social Security and immigration law." But the AP did not note -- as Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace did during his interview with Rove -- that "there was tremendous opposition from your own party on immigration reform and, frankly, not much support on Social Security reform."
An August 19 Associated Press article reported that deputy White House chief of staff Karl Rove, during an August 19 appearance on Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday,"[b]lamed congressional Democrats for standing in the way of changing Social Security and immigration law, two important pieces of Bush's second-term domestic policy that fizzled. Democratic leaders didn't want to give Bush a 'political victory,' Rove said." But the AP did not note -- as Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace did during his interview with Rove -- that, in Wallace's words, "there was tremendous opposition from your own party on immigration reform and, frankly, not much support on Social Security reform." Indeed, most congressional Democrats supported the immigration bill backed by the White House, while Senate Republicans played the dominant role in killing the bill. Further, Democrats were not alone in opposing the Bush administration's efforts to privatize Social Security; contrary to Rove's accusation that they opposed Bush's plan for political reasons, opponents of the plan in Congress and elsewhere noted that the proposed partial privatization of Social Security would exacerbate the system's financial problems in the short term and, as the Bush administration has acknowledged, would do nothing by itself to address them in the longer term.
The August 19 AP article reported that Rove "blamed congressional Democrats for standing in the way of changing ... immigration law." But the AP report did not note that a majority of Senate Democrats on June 28 voted for cloture (33-14) on the Bush-backed comprehensive immigration reform bill -- which would have ended debate and permitted a vote on the bill itself -- while a majority of Republicans voted against (12-37), thereby blocking the bill. In a June 29 article, Washington Post staff writer Jonathan Weisman described the failed cloture vote as "a major blow to Bush, dealt largely by members of his own party."
As Wallace noted, the administration had "not much [Republican] support on Social Security reform." For instance, a January 11, 2005, Post article reported that "[m]any Republicans are expressing reservations about the political wisdom of President Bush's vision for restructuring Social Security" and that "some congressional Republicans are panning the president's plan -- even before it is unveiled." The article went on to report that then-Rep. Rob Simmons (R-CT) "said there is no way he will support Bush's idea of allowing younger Americans to divert some of their payroll taxes into private accounts" and added that "Rep. Jack Kingston (Ga.), a member of the GOP leadership, said 15 to 20 House Republicans agree with Simmons, although others say the number is closer to 40." Similarly, an April 27, 2005, New York Times article reported that, during the Senate Finance Committee's first hearing on Social Security reform, "one Republican, Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, said she did not want to tamper with 'the foundation for our seniors,' and another, Senator Craig Thomas of Wyoming, expressed concern over the amount of borrowing that proposals like the president's would require." Further, as Media Matters for America noted, results from an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, conducted May 12-16, 2005, indicated that even though most Americans believed Social Security faced difficulties, the public did not support Bush's proposal to privatize the program.
From the August 19 AP article:
He [Rove] appeared on three Sunday talk shows after announcing last week he was leaving the White House at the end of the month to spend more time with his family.
[...]
On other issues, Rove:
--Blamed congressional Democrats for standing in the way of changing Social Security and immigration law, two important pieces of Bush's second-term domestic policy that fizzled. Democratic leaders didn't want to give Bush a ''political victory,'' Rove said.
From the August 19 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: The other complaint about you -- and actually, even some Republicans have been saying that this week -- is that the very things that made you so successful as a campaign strategist -- the polarizing strategy -- hurt you in trying to help govern and that, in fact, that you alienated Democrats and even -- I'm not telling anything you haven't heard this week -- ran roughshod over congressional Republicans.
ROVE: Yeah.
WALLACE: Briefly, and not getting into the details of each, how do you explain the failure to build coalitions in the second term on Social Security reform, immigration reform, tax reform?
ROVE: Yeah. First of all, I don't accept that we didn't build coalitions. We built a coalition to pass an energy bill. We built a bipartisan coalition to pass a tax cut. We built -- three tax cuts.
We built a bipartisan coalition to pass education reform, bipartisanship to pass the Patriot Act, bipartisanship for the war resolution -- bipartisanship, incidentally, on Social Security. The chairman of the president's Social Security Reform Commission was respected Democrat Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York. On immigration, we worked closely with Democrats in the house and the Senate. In fact, it was a Democrat who --
WALLACE: But why didn't you get any of them through in the Senate?
ROVE: Well, because at the end of the day, Senator Harry Reid, for reasons that are completely inexplicable -- we were this close to getting that bill through. There were a whole series of amendments lined up by proponents and opponents. Everybody would have had a chance to be part of the process.
And on a Friday night, for reasons that I, to this moment, do not understand and cannot explain to you, Senator Reid precipitously pulled down that bill, claiming that he was tired of it, didn't think that there was going to be enough time the next week. We were within a couple of days. Members of the Senate who said, "Look, I've got a shot to get my amendment. If I get my amendment passed, I'll be for the bill. If I don't get my amendment passed, I will at least have had a shot to try to improve the bill and I could probably be for it" --
WALLACE: But, Mr. Rove, there was tremendous opposition from your own party on immigration reform and, frankly, not much support on Social Security reform.
ROVE: Well, look. On Social Security it's a tough issue. This president campaigned, talked about it in 2000, talked about it in 2004. But it's a difficult issue. I understand that.
But again, inexplicable opposition from Democrats -- Senator Moynihan, for example, came up with a wonderful idea, called, after the author of it, the Posen plan, which basically said we're going to have a progressive benefit and we're going to take the promise that Social Security has made that it can't fulfill, but we'll keep it to the bottom third by giving them the full benefit.
We'll have a scaled-up benefit so that everybody gets a check as big as the check that they're supposed to get today and that the government can -- that we've got the tax money to pay for. This was a great idea, and Democrats opposed it. And why? Because they didn't want to give this president a victory.
I had Democrats tell me, face to face, "We'd love to work with you on Social Security, but our leadership won't let me," or, "I'd love to work with you on Social Security, but my leaders are afraid of giving the president a political victory." That's bad for America.















It's so typical of the Sunday shows that they allow this putrid little person another chance to spray his poisonous plumes about the airwaves; surprising that Fox's Chris Wallace had the toughest interview! And then the AP only reports Rove's comments...
We need a BBC 24 hour news channel, please.
Mary,
Seems that we must forgive Mr. Rove for his outrageous behaviors. He has been diagnosed as suffering from LIEABETES. This disease afflicts Republan operatives, RightWing talk show hosts (eg: O'Reilly, Rush etc.), conservative columnists and anyone entering any Fox News building. Recent investigation has discovered that PATIENT ZERO (in more ways than one) resides in the WHITE HOUSE. This form of LIEABETES is usually passed on through the eardrum, although various forms have been known to exist in print and on the TV airwaves.
A serum has been discovered through the efforts of MediaMatters for America and the threadline of its writers and posters. Unfortunately, only a few suffering from this disease have been cured(including the main person at MMFA). Most of the cure comes by way of reading with your eyes open, listening to all words coming into your ears and discussing differences rather than just shouting and ranting which are obvious symptoms of the horrible affliction.
It is the hope of this writer that all of those LIARS (Liabetes Is Always Rightwing Slanted) open themselves up for the cure.
P.S. No hope for that Rove guy....the devil told him to get his affairs(???) in order because the deal they had is running out.(Stole that line)
Godspeed, The Prince
The only cure for lie-abetes is to take away their insult-in.
Thanks, Prince!
Would you settle for Kieth Obermann on NBC this Sunday? Big shock for some,his ratings in the last month or so are enough to promote him to a slot on the frontline. And a chance for those of us without cable (me) to check him out.
Obermann is good, but I'm thinking that we really need a perspective other than U.S. reporters, and without commentary.
I know about BBC, but there are probably other news services from other countries also that would provide coverage of world events that we don't get here.
My take on Auntie Beeb is a bit different... it's not that the reporters are subservient or non-confrontational; in fact it's the opposite. Despite their personal ideology (or that of their boss), they confront each interviewee aggressively, challenging each assertion.
In a way, Chris Wallace (and I'm not a fan) used a bit of this approach with Rove on Sunday.
Considering the fact that almost our entire media has turned its collective back on "We the People" it is almost to the point were one might want to read and watch Al Jezera (Not sure of proper spelling) to get some semblance of truth........
Almost!
1. Single source, other sources got it right, but this is still wrong of AP to leave out this pertinent information. Hat Tip to Jeter.
2. This is not an issue of how bad we think the AP is, nor is it an issue of how we feel about Social Security reform or immigration. It's about how the failure of the AP journalist to mention these relevant details gives the Bush administration more credibility than they deserve. Hat Tip to Tommy.
It furthers the conservative agenda by giving the Bush administration more credit than they deserve and less blame than they deserve. Karl Rove tried to give the Democrats too much blame for those failures. Rove understands that giving someone undeserved blame is a good thing to do if they're your opponent, and failing to give someone the blame they deserve is a good thing if they're your buddy. That's Rove's agenda - to blame the Dems whenever he can, and provide cover for his boss. The AP allowed that to continue to happen when they didn't point out the fallacy of his argument.
"An Associated Press article reported that Karl Rove, during an appearance on Fox News Sunday, "[b]lamed congressional Democrats for standing in the way of changing Social Security and immigration law." But the AP did not note -- as Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace did during his interview with Rove"
Hmmm. So is Media Matters trying to point out that Fox News is fair and balanced? This is just another example of Fox News asking tough questions as they always do. They aren't in the tank for anybody.
RinoHunter, read the item above. Wallaces "tough" question is followed by a scripted response from Rove that is essentially "it's hard work" and "The Dems fought us".
But if it makes you feel better to pretend that Fox isn't the GOP publicity dept., ignore that part.
Don't worry, he will. Republicans good and everything else is evil just pure evil.
No, Fox News isn't in the tank for anybody. They may lean a little right, but they're still tough on the top Republicans. Overall, they lean a little right, but they're certainly not as far to the right as MSNBC and CNN are to the left. And before you try to paint me as an extremist for writing that you should realize that the polls show that the majority of people believe that Fox News is Fair and Balanced, and at least a plurality believe that CNN and MSNBC have a liberal bias.
Chris Wallace did ask a tough question that other newsmen didn't ask.
That one instance of non-partisan tough questioning does not make FoxNews fair and balanced.
Not everything that Bush, or FoxNews, or even Rush Limbaugh or Karl Rove does is wrong. Not everything that those on the left do is correct and proper. FoxNews can get a few things accurate and still overall be unfair and unbalanced.
<blockquote>That one instance of non-partisan tough questioning does not make FoxNews fair and balanced.</blockquote>
<i>Stands and applauds</i>
I get so tired on the tactic of using one exception to prove a rule.
I am guessing RH that you are practicing sarcasm here. I hope you are anyway ;).
Isn't it interesting that Rove has executive privelege to not speak to Congress, but he can blather away on Sunday news (?) shows. How about we invite Congress to appear on the Sunday show and then trick Rove into coming on as well. Maybe then we would get the truth out of the lying b@$TURD
Why would the AP not report what FOX's Chris Wallace had to say?
Could it be that they didn't want to give anyone at FOX credit for taking on Rove? FOX, a network that is considered to have a Conservative bias?
Now why might the AP do that? Mmmmm...
I believe the AP may have a Liberal bias!!
That's a joke, right? I'll play along.
If the AP did have a liberal bias, I think they blew it here, choosing to let Rove's lies stand so they wouldn't have to show FNS in a good light. In fact, they didn't even need to choose - they could have just refuted Rove with the facts, never mentioning Wallace or Fox.
Well yeah that was meant to be a bit tongue and cheek, though I do have to wonder if Wallace worked for any other network besides FOX, would the AP have included it in the article. I think that's a fair question.
Of course if one is programmed to believe that only a Conservative bias exists in the media they wouldn't even think of examining this omission any further.
Let Rove's words stand, or include a FOX host challenging Rove. Interesting dilemma. If you have an agenda...
AP didn't need to mention FoxNews at all. This is a strawman argument.
Strawman?
Are you sure that isn't the straw between your ears??
Did you read the article?
MMFA is reporting that the AP reported this story about Rove without noting he'd been challenged. Even though Chris Wallace from FOX did indeed challenge Rove.
Get it yet?
God are you always this disingenuous?
You even wrote:
1. Single source, other sources got it right, but this is still wrong of AP to leave out this pertinent information.
So how did Pertinent Information become a strawman?
AP didn't need to report what happened on FoxNews.
They needed to cover that particular issue the same way that Chris Wallace did.
Just like on Friday, this is not about what you claim it's about. It's an example of how by failing to note particular shortcomings of Karl Rove, and challenging him on those shortcomings, and then reporting on his lack of answers to those questions, they further the conservative agenda by making him look better than he really deserves to look.
Dont' be confused by Wallace's attitude toward Rove as "fair and balanced." Democrats already know the damage Bush has done to the country, the right-wing media just want to re-inforce the idea that since Rove was the architect, he's the one to blame - not Bush. Protect Bush at all costs - No.1 Priority
Karl Trairor Rove has no credentials to be doing this. where is the Rovian decoder ring when we need him ?
So the Democrats who DIDN'T have a Congressional majority for the first two years of Dubya's second term are "responsible" for "standing in the way"? That certainly does sound like accurate AP coverage of Rove.
"...but my leaders are afraid of giving the president a political victory." That's bad for America."
Now, that's interesting. Maybe Rove should go back and take a look at why the Republicans were so desperate to defeat Hillary's healthcare plan.
Also, I wonder if some Democrats opposed Bush's Social Security "fix" because they saw it as part of the GOP's determination to dismantle the New Deal? Just a thought.
The New Deal was a raw deal. It could have been crafted as a way for workers to contribute to THEIR OWN retirement accounts (tax free pretty much the way IRA’s work nowadays). Instead, the SocSec program was crafted to have workers contribute to a GOVERNMENT retirement account (which quickly turned to pure fictions as the SocSec account was not held inviolate and separate as it should have been). Sure, workers would have been required to make choices about how to invest the funds but workers in general appear intelligent enough to make those kinds of decisions for their modern day SEP and IRA plans. As a result, we now have a system which is broken and will eventually crash hard. (It could crash more softly if politicians had the courage to do the right thing but it won’t because, for the most part, they don’t)
Why such a choice by the Democrat controlled congress back in the thirties? Simple, folks. With the government in charge of these contributions, society is beholden to government and not to themselves. It’s the way the Democrat party has been operating since its inception: make the average citizen dependent on government for his welfare and he will continue to support politicians who successfully give the appearance, if not the reality, of redistributing wealth in the voter’s favor.
Say what you want about the New Deal but be sure to remember FDR's programs brought the country back from the pits of despair. In the process the strongest middle class in the history of the world was created.
And if you want to see redistribution of wealth just look at the tax breaks, development subsidies and other huge payments that the public so generously hands to companies.
But he biggest mistake everyday Republicans make is to seperate the people from their government. It is our government, we own it. There is not a damn thing wrong with government working on behalf of her stake holders.
This is another example of MM's silly "They-didn't-include-our-points-in-their-story-so-they're-biased" posts.
As I have pointed out, you cannot include every point in every article every day. Time and space are limited, so reporters have to limit what they write.
However, if anyone thinks that the AP is in some way trying to help this Bush Administration, Karl Rove, or conservatives in general then this is just foolish.
If you think that the AP, the NYT, the Wa. Post, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Faux, ad naseum haven't been leaving out the most important points of the stories they have been covering for the last 10 years or so, you are going about in a fog. This is just another example.