Russert misrepresented debate exchanges on Social Security to accuse Clinton of having "one public position and one private position"
During the Democrats' October 30 debate in Philadelphia, moderator Tim Russert misrepresented prior exchanges Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton had with moderator Judy Woodruff at a September 20 forum in Iowa and with Russert himself at a September 26 debate in New Hampshire and went on to accuse Clinton of having "one public position and one private position" on the issue of raising the cap on income on which Social Security taxes must be paid. Under current law, Social Security taxes are not paid on income above $97,500.
In one of several exchanges for which Russert was characterized by the New York Times in an October 31 article as "arguably" Clinton's "third toughest opponent on the stage" during the October 30 debate, Russert said the following:
RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, I want to clear something up which goes to the issue of credibility. You were asked at the AARP debate whether or not you would consider taxing, lifting the cap from $97,500, taxing that, raising more money for Social Security. You said, quote, "It's a no." I asked you the same question in New Hampshire, and you said "no." Then you went to Iowa and you went up to Tod Bowman , a teacher, and had a conversation with him saying, "I would consider lifting the cap perhaps above $200,000." You were overheard by an Associated Press reporter saying that. Why do you have one public position and one private position?
But Russert's accounts of both the AARP and New Hampshire exchanges are misleading.
In the first -- at the September 20 AARP forum -- the exchange went as follows:
FORMER SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D-NC): I just want to follow up on one thing that Senator Biden said just a minute ago, but he mentioned it briefly in passing. There is something we can do to generate more revenue for Social Security. Today, for those in the audience who may not be aware of this -- and I suspect most of them are -- it caps out at about $97,000. In other words, if you make $80,000 a year, you're paying Social Security taxes on every dime of your income. If you work on Wall Street and you make $50 million a year, you pay Social Security tax on the first $97,000, no Social Security tax on the rest of it. This is not right, and it's not fair, and what we need to do, in my judgment --
[applause]
I don't -- to the point that Bill just made, I do think we need to have a bubble above that 97 -- probably up to about $200,000 so we don't raise taxes on middle class families. But above the $200,000, these millionaires on Wall Street ought to be paying their Social Security taxes.
JUDY WOODRUFF (moderator): Everybody here agree with that? Everybody here agree with that? OK. Senator Clinton, agree?
CLINTON: I want to focus on the fiscal responsibility piece of this.
WOODRUFF: All right.
CLINTON: Before we do anything else, we need to get back to what was working, and I'd like to see us do that. And we should make people pay their fair share, but we have a lot of work to do in Washington to clean up the fiscal mess we're going to inherit from President Bush.
EDWARDS: So was that no?
WOODRUFF: I think that's a no. Is that correct? [Clinton nods affirmatively.] It's a no.
Contrary to Russert's assertion, Woodruff did not ask "whether or not you would consider ... lifting the cap from $97,500." Her question was far more general -- "Everybody here agree with that? ... Senator Clinton, agree?" Moreover, Clinton did not say, as Russert claimed, "it's a no." Woodruff did, apparently in response to Clinton's nod.
In the second exchange -- at the September 26 New Hampshire debate -- Russert asked, "Senator Clinton, would you be in favor of saying to the American people, 'I'm going to tax your income. I'm not going to cap at $97,500. Everyone, even if you're a millionaire, is going to pay Social Security tax on every cent they make?" Clinton responded by talking about "fiscal responsibility." The exchange continued as follows:
RUSSERT: But you would not take lifting the cap at 97.5 off the table.
CLINTON: Well, I take everything off the table until we move toward fiscal responsibility and before we have a bipartisan process. I don't think I should be negotiating about what I would do as president. You know, I want to see what other people come to the table with.
RUSSERT: But Senator Biden said you can't grow your way out of this. And for the record, when the Clinton administration left office, Social Security was only guaranteed to 2038, not 2055.
CLINTON: There was a plan, on the basis of the balanced budget and the surplus, to take it all the way to 2055.
RUSSERT: A plan --
CLINTON: And we know what happened. George Bush came in, went back to deficits, and has basically used the Social Security trust fund and borrowing from China --
RUSSERT: But Senator --
CLINTON: -- and other countries to pay for the war.
RUSSERT: -- a simple question. A simple question. What do you put on the table? What are you willing to look at to say, "We're not going to double the taxes, we're not going to cut benefits in half; I'm willing to put everything on the table, some things on the table, nothing on the table"?
CLINTON: I'm not putting anything on the proverbial table until we move toward fiscal responsibility. I think it's a mistake to do that.
Russert did not ask "the same question" as Woodruff, and did not ask if she would "consider" lifting the income cap. He asked first if she would "be in favor" of lifting the cap, and then if she was putting it on or taking it off "the table." Contrary to Russert's assertion, Clinton did not say "no." She talked again, as she did in Iowa, about fiscal responsibility, and she talked about the need to establish a "bipartisan process" before anything was on or off "the proverbial table."
Excerpts in relevant part provided below.
From the October 30 Democratic debate in Philadelphia:
RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, I want to clear something up which goes to the issue of credibility. You were asked at the AARP debate whether or not you would consider taxing, lifting the cap from $97,500, taxing that, raising more money for Social Security. You said, quote, "It's a no." I asked you the same question in New Hampshire, and you said "no."
Then you went to Iowa and you went up to Tod Bowman, a teacher, and had a conversation with him saying, "I would consider lifting the cap perhaps above $200,000." You were overheard by an Associated Press reporter saying that. Why do you have one public position and one private position?
CLINTON: Well, Tim, I don't. I have said consistently that my plan for Social Security is fiscal responsibility first, then to deal with any long-term challenges which I agree are ones that we are going to have to address. We would have a bipartisan commission. In the context of that, I think all of these would be considered. But, personally, I do not want to balance Social Security on the backs of our seniors and middle-class families. That's why I put fiscal responsibility first, because we have to change the Bush tax cuts, which I am committed to doing. We have to move back toward a more fair and progressive tax system, and begin once again to move toward a balanced budget with a surplus. You know, part of the idea in the '90s was not just so Bill would have a check mark next to his name in history, but so that we would have the resources to deal with a lot of these entitlement problems. George Bush understood that. The Republicans understood that. They wanted to decimate that balanced budget and a surplus because they knew that that would give them a free hand to try to privatize Social Security. I am not going to be repeating Republican talking points. So when somebody asks me, would something like this be considered, well, anything could be considered when we get to a bipartisan commission. But personally, I am not going to be advocating any specific fix until I am seriously approaching fiscal responsibility.
RUSSERT: But you did raise it as a possibility with Tod Bowman?
CLINTON: Well, but everybody knows what the possibilities are, Tim. Everybody knows that. But I do not advocate it. I do not support it. I have laid out what I do believe, and I am going to continue to emphasize that. I think, for us to act like Social Security is in crisis is a Republican trap. We're playing on the Republican field. And I don't intend to do that.
From the September 26 Democratic debate in New Hampshire:
RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, would you be in favor of saying to the American people, "I'm going to tax your income. I'm not going to cap at $97,500. Everyone, even if you're a millionaire, is going to pay Social Security tax on every cent they make"?
CLINTON: Well, Tim, let me tell you what I think about this because I know this is a particular concern of yours, but I want to make three points very briefly.
First, I do think that it's important to talk about fiscal responsibility. You know, when my husband left office after moving us toward a balanced budget and a surplus, we had a plan to make Social Security solvent until 2055. Now, because of the return to deficits, we've lost 14 years of solvency. It's now projected to be solvent until 2041. Getting back on a path of fiscal responsibility is absolutely essential.
Number two, I think we do need another bipartisan process. You described what happened in '83. It took presidential leadership, and it took the relationship between the White House and Capitol Hill to reach the kind of resolution that was discussed.
And I think that has to be what happens again, but with a president who is dedicated to Social Security, unlike our current president, who has never liked Social Security. You can go back and see when he first ran for Congress he was dissing Social Security. So when I'm president, I will do everything to protect and preserve Social Security so we can have that kind of bipartisanship.
And finally, then you can look in the context of fiscal responsibility and of a bipartisan compromise what else might be done. But I think if you don't put fiscal responsibility first, you're going to really make a big mistake, because we demonstrated in the '90s it had a lot to do with moving us toward solvency.
RUSSERT: But you would not take lifting the cap at 97.5 off the table.
CLINTON: Well, I take everything off the table until we move toward fiscal responsibility and before we have a bipartisan process. I don't think I should be negotiating about what I would do as president. You know, I want to see what other people come to the table with.
RUSSERT: But Senator Biden said you can't grow your way out of this. And for the record, when the Clinton administration left office, Social Security was only guaranteed to 2038, not 2055.
CLINTON: There was a plan, on the basis of the balanced budget and the surplus, to take it all the way to 2055.
RUSSERT: A plan -
CLINTON: And we know what happened. George Bush came in, went back to deficits, and has basically used the Social Security trust fund and borrowing from China -
RUSSERT: But Senator -
CLINTON: -- and other countries to pay for the war.
RUSSERT: -- a simple question. A simple question. What do you put on the table? What are you willing to look at to say, "We're not going to double the taxes, we're not going to cut benefits in half; I'm willing to put everything on the table, some things on the table, nothing on the table"?
CLINTON: I'm not putting anything on the proverbial table until we move toward fiscal responsibility. I think it's a mistake to do that.
From the September 20 AARP forum (full transcript on Iowa Public Television site):
SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN (D-DE): Yes, she is right about it, but there's one other thing. Look, let's just put something in perspective. Right now Social Security tax is up to $97,500. I think that's the number. If you raise it to $118,000 subject to the tax, you increase its life expectancy another 40 years. This is not a tough problem, folks. This is not real hard. But in addition to -- what Hillary -- the point that Senator Clinton makes is fundamentally correct, not only about Social Security but about every other aspect of our fiscal problems, everything from Medicare straight through to our ability to pay for education, is impacted by the godawful deficit these guys have created. This president should be called Houdini. He went from a $5.8 trillion projected surplus to $3.7 trillion projected deficit. Only Houdini could that, or Bush.
[applause]
WOODRUFF: Senator Dodd, we're talking about what's on the table, what's off the table. What about raising the retirement age? We know that Americans live longer today, we're working longer, we're healthier longer. Is this something you could support?
SEN. CHRISTOPHER DODD (D-CT): No, I wouldn't. I don't think that's needed at all here. I think that would be a mistake to move in that direction. Now, let me add to the points here again that's been made, and I think it needs to be reinforced over and over again. It's hard to imagine, but I want you to consider just this. It took the accumulation of 42 presidents to acquire the debt that one president has in six years. That's a stunning statistic when you think of it. Throughout the 230-year history of our country, all 42 of the predecessors of this president did not accumulate as much debt as he has in six years in this administration. We need to have some sound, sensible policies here regarding our fiscal picture in this country, regarding trade policies and job growth, economic growth in this country that has not been a part of this at all. We're giving away too much all over the world and here at home. And you don't need to do that much to fix Social Security. To me, by my colleagues here, this is absolutely the case. Again, this is the red herring. This is the crowd that's historically tried to undermine this valuable program that has been a safety net for millions of Americans.
WOODRUFF: Governor Richardson?
RICHARDSON: Look, I want to, again, differentiate myself with Joe because --
BIDEN: You're not going to make secretary of state.
[laughter]
RICHARDSON: You know, we don't need to deal with a retirement age. We don't need to deal with the cap. That's a 15 percent --
WOODRUFF: How do you pay for it?
RICHARDSON: Well, I'll tell you. You can't -- with a cap that's a 15 percent tax increase on family farms, on small business. This is what I would do. One, you take privatization off the table. Secondly, you get rid of dipping into the Social Security trust fund. The third that nobody's talked about is you grow the economy. I mean, the Social Security increase -- I've got this fly around me. The Social Security --
WOODRUFF: It's a Republican. It came in from Washington.
'
[laughter]
RICHARDSON: -- the Social Security system today is dependent on the growth of 1.3 percent by the year 2045. That is weak economic growth. We balance the budget. We invest in education. And lastly, I think we need to look at some positive alternatives, like creating universal pension that guarantees portability. That will deal with the problem.
WOODRUFF: Quickly on this, and then I have another question on the retirement age, so go ahead.
EDWARDS: I just want to follow up on one thing that Senator Biden said just a minute ago, but he mentioned it briefly in passing. There is something we can do to generate more revenue for Social Security. Today, for those in the audience who may not be aware of this -- and I suspect most of them are -- it caps out at about $97,000. In other words, if you make $80,000 a year, you're paying Social Security taxes on every dime of your income. If you work on Wall Street and you make $50 million a year, you pay Social Security tax on the first $97,000, no Social Security tax on the rest of it. This is not right, and it's not fair, and we need to do in my judgment --
[applause]
I don't -- to the point that Bill just made, I do think we need to have a bubble above that 97 -- probably up to about $200,000 so we don't raise taxes on middle-class families. But above the $200,000, these millionaires on Wall Street ought to be paying their Social Security taxes.
WOODRUFF: Everybody here agree with that? Everybody here agree with that? OK, Senator Clinton, agree?
CLINTON: I want to focus on the fiscal responsibility piece of this.
WOODRUFF: All right.
CLINTON: Before we do anything else, we need to get back to what was working, and I'd like to see us do that. And we should make people pay their fair share, but we have a lot of work to do in Washington to clean up the fiscal mess we're going to inherit from President Bush.
EDWARDS: So was that no?
WOODRUFF: I think that's a no. Is that correct? [Clinton nods affirmatively.] It's a no. I have a question about -- well, this is to all of you, but it's to Senator Dodd. Democrats, as we know, critical of President Bush's approach on Social Security. You heard the phrase over and over again, he always -- they would say the president says, "It's my way or the highway." But if you take benefit cuts, partial private accounts, if you take raising retirement age, all those things off the table, haven't you done the same thing as the president?
The way I read the above exchanges, HRC has the politican's position on SS (and a lot of other issues). That is, don't say anything concrete as it will come back to bite you in the future (and in this case, the near future). I will give Edwards and Obama a lot of credit in having firms stances on some issues, but I don't see where HRC is offering anything in the way of a firm position on almost anything (except for tax reform, AKA tax increases).
Russert was clearly out of line.
When has anyone seen a 'moderator' attack the candidates in such fashion?
That's right Lance, asking a presidential candidate to clarify their position on something like social security taxes is clearly out of line. And she's just a woman after all. That mean ol' mister man.
Hi RUSH, you are back under a different name. Rush, you don't have to visit here because your PARROTS are doing just fine.
That's right Lance, asking a presidential candidate to clarify their position on something like social security taxes is clearly out of line. And she's just a woman after all. That mean ol' mister man.
You've missed the point completely, Brainus Minimus. A debate moderator is supposed to keep the debate moving according the established rules, allowing the proper amounts of time for the participants to make statements and provide rebuttals to statements made by other participants. The moderator is NOT supposed to be an active partipant in the debate, or an inquisitor attacking the various participants, regardless of their gender.
Russert was out of line. Period.
Well said. Whad what's with this "Yes or No" answer stuff? I tough this was a DEBATE. I think short answer, if not essay answer is far more appropriate for any reasonably complex issue than multiple choice. LET THEM ELABORATE! Yes/No tells me nothing!
(And besides - any issue for which a yes/no answer is approriate (although I can't think of a single one) has no place in this kind of forum!)
"That's right Lance, asking a presidential candidate to clarify their position on something like social security taxes is clearly out of line."
There was nothing to clarify. That's the point. Russert was manufacturing a bogus issue, an insinuation of flip-flopping.
Exactly - Russert asked the equivalent of "Have you stopped beating your wife - yes or no?"
No wonder MMFA don't run campaigns, when your Candidate bombs and answer, you don't keep replaying it.
I read Hillary's quote, and it was actually worse than I remember her saying. Thanks.
I think I managed to leave out one letter in each word of that last sentence.
You'd think I was writing in code. Sorry about that.
Is that a no vote for Sen. Clinton or if she has a definite position that means you will vote for her? Now, is that a yes or no? And no shaking your head.
I concur with HRC, even though I also appreciate the point Edawrds attempted to make:
HRC: FIRST, get the tax table in line with expenditures; then solve Social Security. My private fantasy about solving our deficit by extracting either teeth or money from all the Repugnants, then the officers and board members of the Corporations, need not be the method - but surely we do need to go where the money went, when those b******s stole it from the nation. If we cannot retrieve enough of the treasury before they run out of teeth, I am open to digits.
Then, yes: a bipartisan commission to devise the details of ensuring that income is equitably taxed - or SS eligibility forfeited - for those currently surpassing the cap - or both tax and forfeiture might be OK.
Until the first is taken care of, the second doesn't have appropriate data to be adequately calculated.
Is it me or do the Republans seem to be more involved in the Democratic Partys' primary than ever before? I remember the CystJocks (Limpy, Hanny etc.) begging for Sen. Clinton to be the nominee. But now they seem to have flip-flopped. This woman scares them both politically and personally. Seems like a terrible way to live. Why don't the Republans just nominated Mr. 911 and beat her. Then they might say that since we defeated Hillary that 9/11 is the best thing to happen to our party since Pres. Cheney.
How about this: Why don't Democrats simply vote for the candidate that they most want to be President instead of blaming Republicans for who their nomine ends up being. Talk about ridiculous, Republicans don't cast a single vote in the Democratic primaries yet they get blamed when the Democratic nominee isn't who Democrats want it to be.
How about this: Why don't Democrats simply vote for the candidate that they most want to be President instead of blaming Republicans for who their nomine ends up being. Talk about ridiculous, Republicans don't cast a single vote in the Democratic primaries yet they get blamed when the Democratic nominee isn't who Democrats want it to be.
LOL Why aren’t the Republicans candidates running their campaigns on what a great country we’ve had for the last 6 years? Why aren’t Republicans candidates running their campaigns on how great the economy is, how many “high-wage” jobs they’ve created and how they've "reduced" government spending under their great leadership? Why aren’t Republicans candidates running on how they’ve caught America’s #1 terrorist, OBL. Why aren't Republican candidates running on how few terrorists exist since they've been in charge of the "war on terror"? Why aren’t Republicans candidates running on the May 2003 banner “Mission Accomplished in Iraq”? Why aren’t Republicans candidates running on Republican triumphs? Why is each and every Republican candidate running away from the last 6 years and running against Hillary, who has not received the Democratic nomination? Why? If the last 6 years have been so fantastic Republicans candidates should be shouting it from the rooftops but instead they are again trying to get everyone to look in the other direction while hiding under their bed in fear of ONE woman. Aren’t they proud of torture and the wiretapping American citizens? Republicans candidates should be running against each other, telling everyone how the continuation of Juniors ”great accomplishments” are necessary, not running against ONE woman who hasn’t even been nominated.
Doggone good post, Pealene.
I agree, another great post from Pearl...
Pearlene, I'm not at all convinced that bulk of the Republican noise about Hillary can be construed as fear of her. I can't help thinking Obama was cutting pretty close to the bone when he said to Hillary that maybe the reason they are paying so much attention to her during our primaries is because that is an argument they are comfortable having.
Just look at this thread. A bunch of right wingers arguing with a bunch of Democrats (or left wingers?) about the foibles of Hillary Clinton. What place at all does right wing criticism of Hillary have during our primary season? The more noise they make can easily be seen as an effort to get Democrats to circle our wagons around Hillary for the nomination. That wouldn't indicate a fear of her at all, but rather an eagerness to have her as an opponent.
I know, everyone always sneers that the Democrats should just nominate whoever they want. But it's not as though we function in a vacume. And when we take criticism from them about one of our candidates at face value we definitely open ourselves up to manipulation.
Sundog,
Trying to factor in who the Republicans want as the Democrat nominee is an exercise in futility and symptomatic that too many Dems have bought into another conspiracy theory.
The Republicans simple dislike Madame Clinton the most. She is the easiest target and the presumptive nominee. There is a list about a mile long of all the things that can be argued against her. It makes sense to attack her rather than say Obama or Edwards.
I think the Republicans probably feel pretty confident Hillary will be the nominee. As we get closer to the primaries I'm fairly confident you'll see the other GOPers increase their attacks on Guilliani.
AA, it's easy enough to just shrug it off and say it aint happening, or call it a name like 'conspiracy,' but that doesn't actually refute the idea in the least.
There are a couple of important factors here. One is that there is no actual reason Clinton should be the automatic nominee. There are some very strong reasons she is a disasterous choice for the Democrats. And one of the biggest reasons it's difficult for Democrats to have the debate that gets them to their best nominee is all the noise about Hillary. This is a well known phenomenom and while I have perceived it in this and other campaigns, I didn't invent the notion.
Whether or not some or all of the right wingers providing this white noise for Hillary to hide behind know they are helping her isn't really the issue. The truth is, it's about the best thing she has going for her at this point. She is clearly avoiding any actual debate and trying to get pinned down on as few issues as possible. Standing up bravely to unreasoanable attacks is pretty much her whole schtick with many of her supporters.
I'm a canvasser as well as a blogger so I talk to Hillary supporters online as well as on their doorsteps. A majority of the ones I talk to haven't given any thought at all to who the best nominee would be but just got into the fight against the common right wing foe on her side and are supporting her because of that. Many are just sort of surprised that there is a debate going on at all.
You say the Republicans do this because they assume she is the 'inevitable' nominee. But I've seen first hand that it is their act of doing this that is allowing her to appear so much the 'inevitable' nominee in the first place.
Another widely ignored fact is that some of Rove's own people have talked about how they saw plainly that Kerry would provide them the best opportunities in the general election so they helped him gain stature with Democrats by attacking him from the right during the nomination process. Whether this is why he got it or not isn't even important. What is significant is that there is actual evidence that modern Republicans have pulled this very trick in other elections. One of Rove's own lieutenants spoke openly about this in the bragging stage right after the 2004 election.
AA, just saying it aint raining doesn't mean a thing when you're soaking wet.
Sundog, I think Republicans are running as hard and as fast from Juniors record as President. It’s not fear of Hillary, she just seems like an easy target for Republicans. Kind of like the little kid in the school yard that all of the big kids picked on, she is easy. The Republicans can simply recycle each and every lie or innuendo that they have both on Hillary and Bill, How many times have we seen “Bill slept with” or Hillary is a lesbian” nonsense. People, IMO, are simply tired of all of the scandalises stories about the Clinton's and Republicans have NOTHING else to give. They have heard it all! Rudy, can’t run on 9/11, he was clueless about OBL. Mitt, flip flops more than a fresh fish on the deck of a boat, Huckabee reminds you of the stone-age man in most of his thinking and McCain lost his way kissing Juniors a**. We can simply hope that Thompson stays awake period. They have to make her the villain cause they got NOTHING about the last 6 years to be proud of. Every other politician who’s party has been in power would tout as an example, their accomplishments and site the need for the continuation of that party‘s control. Republicans are NOT doing that, they go after Hillary as the scapegoat rather than deal with the result of a Republican control government for the last 6 years.
Hillary is not for me but if the choice is between her and any other Republican candidate, she get my vote. She is the lesser of the evils.
I would vote for her too. But I don't think she will win. Hers is not the campaign that is bringing the new people into the party. The GOP will run some empty suit against her and remind everyone over and over that we've just had a full 20 years of two families running the White House. In a year when people want change more than anything, the GOP will be able to take on the mantle of change. Incredible that the Democrats would provide them with that opportunity. As though the GOP is too dumb or too ethical to use it? They had a draft-dodger who started a war on purpose running against a decorated vet in 2008. They went after him in the primaries too and I remember people saying about John Kerry exactly what you just said about them having nothing else on Hillary for the general election.
And then there were people who went and voted for George Bush because John Kerry didn't have a good enough answer about what to do about the mess that George Bush created. These people have no shame and there is no limit to how low they will push people in order to get their votes or at least depress them.
This stuff is real grim to me because right now it seems as likely as anything that we will have another Republican administration. The reckless overconfidence I see in the Clinton supporters just makes it worse. They aren't thinking about it much at all. It's just Her Turn apparently. What I perceive (and this aint my first turn at this game) is that Hillary gets stopped in the primaries or the GOP probably starts a new administration.
"Aren’t they proud of torture and the wiretapping American citizens"
They shouldn't be since neither has actually happened.
Oh, they haven't happened? What a relief.
What a brave world where you can ignore whatever parts of reality that simply don't support what you want to believe. Let's say that Saddam actually had ICBMS pointed at every major American city and was weeks away from trying to win a nuclear war against us right before we invaded. Let it sink in.......Ahhhhhh. That's better. Now everything makes perfect sense.
If you can actually come up with an example of the U.S. using actual torture and an example of an average U.S. citizen with no connection to terrorists being wiretapped, then I'll concede to you that those things are happening. Otherwise, it's simply in your imagination.
Is it me or do the Republans seem to be more involved in the Democratic Partys' primary than ever before?
I think that's because to paraphrase a vice president from the past, the Republicans know that none of THEIR candidates are worth a bucket of warm spit.
Looks like Russert is a strong candidate for Misinformer of The Year.
The correct answer here, which Hillary knows but apparently almost nobody here does, is that there is no crisis with social security. That was just the privatizers trying to scare people. http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2114
With the media controlled by idiots, Hillary can't come out and say that there's nothing to fix with social security. Russert would have died on the stage. Hence the oh-so-troubling unclear answer, which worries all our strong liberals, but gets her elected and doesn't have any effect on the sensible policies she'll enact in office.
thats right...this "crisis" is manufactured by GOPers who've tried to end SS since the 30s. It's just that today they cant be so obvious.
Russert is just a putz with a personal agenda against Hillary just as he had a personal agenda against Bill.
Politicians have learned since Papa Bush's "read my lips" to not let themselves be pinned down on anything except their own major issues, and rightfully so.
Why would, or should Hillary, or any other candidate in their right mind, let themselves be filmed and then their responses spun in sound-bytes in the future should situations of higher national priority mandate changes after they won the election. I believe we have to look at Hillary's general agenda (or that of the candidate of your choice) and determine their general intent about a variety of current issues to make our voting decision.
The fact is situations will change - any candidate will have to deal with changes in priorities due to urgencies that cannot be currently predicted and also deal with certain opposition after the election should they win. Therefore, exact statements made now in answer to "gotcha" questions by biased "reporters" about exactly what they will do at a future point in time cannot be completely accurate because situations change and compromise to get the majority of their agenda completed (as stated as their intent while they were candidates running for the presidency) will have to be made. (especially "questions" posed by someone known by the candidate to have a known history of political sabotage)
Here's typical Russert during the Clinton witch hunt days:
http://www.bartcop.com/russertx.gif
It seems there are way too many "debates", which are not debates at all.
What we are seeing are question and answer periods, and candidates are not permitted to give accurate, meaningful and complete answers explaining their positions, especially when limited to as little as a thirty second response. A "lightening round" has no place in a political debate!
The Lincoln Douglas debates of 1858, a series of seven, (and then for a seat in the Senate, not even the Presidency) took the following format: one candidate spoke for an hour, then the other candidate spoke for an hour and a half, and then the first candidate was allowed a half hour "rejoinder." The candidates alternated speaking first as the debates went from one geographical location to the next.
Unlike the dog and pony shows our current "debates" have degenerated into, these were debates that informed the American public - and unlike today, a public that was interested. The current political series of shows do not, and the vast majority of our public doesn't even watch them but allows others who spin their reports to tell them what to think.
It is a process that needs to be fixed.
Few people watch the debates not because few people care, but because the format repells both the people who don't care and the people who do.
Funny how when the news media retools programming for us idiots, the ratings drop.
It's like the media two-step that's going on: move to the right, get fewer viewers. Move further to the right, get fewer viewers. Move further to the right...
Because they're too dumb to turn around, the media will two-step right off a cliff, which is fine by me.
Edwards was the one that tried to pin Hillary down on an answer and Hillary nodded in the affirmative when directly asked by Woodruff. I guess Edwards shouldn't go after one of his opponents, mean mean Edwards. If Hillary doesn't agree with it then she shouldn't nod that she does.
Seriously, what's with all the pretzel twisting around here to defend Hillary? She didn't say it but nodded which isn't the same thing because the question was vague...okey dokey. Is she smart or is she dumb? I think she's very smart. I think she understands questions and context and all that stuff, contrary to MMFA trying to give her a free pass on all of it. She made a mistake this time, that's all.
She made a mistake. I hope it's a big enough one to make room for a more Progressive candidate like Eswards or Obama to step in and take the lead.
I can always hope.
Bruce1ACE, As you mentioned above, "instead of blaming Republans" seems to be the response of the Repubs whenever they are questioned about anything..the BLAME GAME is an old rerun which the Repubs cannot escape. Democrats aren't blaming anyone, just questioning why the Repubs are sooo interested in the D primary rather than their own. Is it FEAR? If not, what is it? Very simple questions. There is no reason for any Democrat to blame any Republan for anything. They have enough blame themselves from within.
What did Sen Clinton say that upsets the Republans? Seems that the R's are still having a problem listening. She mentioned many times that fixing the problems of the debt comes first. But you are right that her opponents should have every right to question her. But MMFA defending her...if that were the case, why would they even post his topic? Maybe MMFA thinks it is misinformation. And quit blaming MMFA for their Website...Damn Republans always with the Plame Game, I mean Blame game.
And what part of "consider" can't the Republans understand? Just because "One Thought George" is the leader of the Right doesn't mean consider is a bad word.
Justice and Truth in the USA - Here to present the FACTS -
From the Wikipedia entry on Tim Russert:
CareerRussert graduated from law school and went to work on Daniel Patrick Moynihan's (D, NY) 1976 Senatorial campaign. He later went to work on Mario Cuomo (D, NY) campaign. In 1984 he was hired by NBC at their Washington Bureau. He became Washington Bureau Chief 4 years later. "[1]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
TIM RUSSERT - LIBERAL
In 1984:
-The USSR still existed
-We did not have a warrentless domestic surveillance program
-Iraq had chemical weapons
-Michael Jackson was black and had a nose
-The Chicago Bulls drafted Michael Jordan
-The Raiders were in LA and played great fooball
-MTV played music videos
-David Lee Roth had hair
-Tim Russert was a liberal
-George W. Bush was an alcoholic
Only one thing hasn't changed since then: W is still an alchoholic.
And Bush was STILL AWOL.
Cool- I want to do some pinhead investigative reporting. From the Wikipedia entry;
"While in law school, an official from his alma mater, John Carroll University, called Tim to ask if he could book some concerts for the school as he had done while a student. Tim agreed, but said he would need money to do it because he was running out of money to pay for law school."
Tim Russert - FINANCIALLY UNSTABLE COLLEGE STUDENT AND ROCK CONCERT PROMOTER !
Is that who we want moderating our debates?
Funny how "1976" wasn't bolded.
In your next post, you can rebut the dozens of clear examples of conservative misinformation by Russert in MMFA's database.
More like dozens of examples of Russert not sticking to the far left script.
and ronald reagan went from liberal democrat and union chief to conservative republican in ten years. what russert did in the 80s means nothing.
HBL, here with some unsolicited helpful advice---
Justice and Truth in the USA, you may want to re-think your cute little intro.
The authoritarian "I'm going to give you the facts" line might work when Rush uses it on you, but you're posting to a different demo here.That may be the point where you lie back and let the bullsh*t sink in, but to most here, that's the point where you are asked to back some of it up.
I'm not trying to pile on, as you may have posted all of your comments before realizing how badly they would all be blasted, I'm just giving some friendly advice; in the future, you may want to concentrate on one thread, and do your very best with that one before embarrassing yourself further.
HuntingtonBeachLefty
That's pretty funny stuff.
There's a reason why they're called NEO-cons ... they "were" liberal, and then someone waved a whole wad of cash in their faces, and they went off following the scent of money ... proving that they were really whores ...
Kinda like Krauthammer, who successfully sued a hotel for a million dollars because he, a drunken student at college, didn't have the brains to know that you don't dive into a pool shallow end ... and some time later decided that nobody else who actually suffers injuries from known design problems (not pools with "No Diving" posted) can get compensation from a company who knew these and still let the product go out ... and he went off and joined the "anti-lawsuit" crowd that hires lawyers to defend the corporations ...
I don't get it.
What does what Russert was doing 30 years ago have to do with his performance as moderator of last week's debate?
30 years ago W was a lush whose wife was threatening to leave him.
Today he's a dry drunk and the toast of the religious right.
Go figure.
Funny, Cheney's communication director, Cathie Martin, did not seem to thgink that Tim Russert was a "liberal":
Option 1: "MTP-VP," she[Martin] wrote, then listed the pros and cons of a vice presidential appearance on the Sunday show. Under "pro," she wrote: "control message."
"I suggested we put the vice president on 'Meet the Press,' which was a tactic we often used," Martin testified. "It's our best format."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/25/AR2007012501951_pf.html
Maybe the next Dem debate should be on Air America Radio. Then all 6 people who listen will not be able to blame the moderators!!!!
Air America just added 11 stations, knucklehead.
Off topic (kind of)...I tuned in MTP Sunday morning hoping to watch a discussion of some relevant topic such as Pakistan, Iraq, Mukasey, etc.
And who am I staring at? Freaking Fred Thompson!
Russert is a complete waste of valuable airtime.
not one word about the censorship of Mike Gravel....Really? how sad. You guys need to stop paddling for Hillary. Shes just Bush without a penis.
In a Friday Night "One Year Out" from Elections gathering I attended....Hillary came up again and again. We all agreed on two things. She had her first "messy" debate and that she needs to be more clear. The reason why most Dems get in trouble is that they don't speak in talking points like the Republicans do.
On Social Security, I believe it is one of the biggest domestic issues on the table. I like Hillary's ideas on it.
I like Edwards' idea:
You bet your ass we're gonna raise some taxes. You conservatives wanna cry and moan? Good, after we're done raising your payroll taxes, we'll raise your income taxes.
And then, to really put the hurt on these stinkin' Cons, we'll raise corporate taxes, too!
"not one word about the censorship of Mike Gravel....Really? how sad. You guys need to stop paddling for Hillary. Shes just Bush without a penis."
...good point. Hill is just another doubletalking politician who panders to whomever the polls deem necessary to pander to. I don't agree with Gravel on many issues, but he seems like his beliefs are his own; not the result of the latest trendy focus group. I had the same opinion of Howard Dean in 04: I might not agree with him but I respect his backbone (and as a metalhead I really liked the scream).
To everyone who is all mad that Hilly got waxed in the debate, take heart. The more she gets called out the better she does in the polls. Her supporters ought to be rooting for her to do badly; the victim card is a powerful one indeed.
Here's a great issue for Hillary: under the pretext of law enforcement, the Social Security Administration has terminated the benefits of thousands of harmless retired and disabled Americans.The Mental Health Project of the Urban Justice Center recently released "Social Insecurity: How the Social Security Administration's 'Fugitive Felon Program' Harms Disabled, Retired, and Poor Americans Without Aiding Law Enforcement." The report is available at www.urbanjustice.org/ujc/projects/mental.html