Brzezinski said Obama "claimed" McCain "flip-flopp[ed]" on Bush tax cuts -- but it's not a "claim"; it's a fact
SUMMARY: On MSNBC Live, Mika Brzezinski stated that Sen. Barack Obama "claimed" that Sen. John McCain "had initially opposed the tax cuts and was flip-flopping, just to get elected," and aired a clip of McCain saying, "Senator Obama has stated very clearly his desire to increase Americans' taxes." But Brzezinski did not acknowledge that Obama's "claim[]" that McCain reversed his position on the Bush tax cuts is in fact true, or that, contrary to McCain's assertion, Obama has proposed tax cuts for the poor and the middle class.
During the March 14 edition of MSNBC Live, anchor Mika Brzezinski stated that Sen. Barack Obama "claimed" that Sen. John McCain "had initially opposed the tax cuts and was flip-flopping, just to get elected." Brzezinski then aired a clip of McCain saying, "Well, it's very clear that I have voted to make those tax cuts permanent on several times. Senator Obama has stated very clearly his desire to increase Americans' taxes." At no point did Brzezinski acknowledge that Obama's "claim[]" that McCain reversed his position on the Bush tax cuts is in fact true, or that, contrary to McCain's assertion in his response, Obama has proposed tax cuts for the poor and the middle class.
In a March 13 statement, Obama said that McCain "made a decision to reverse himself" on the Bush tax cuts, which, Obama added, "McCain rightly said were irresponsible when they first came up that certainly were unprecedented at a time of war." Of McCain's reversal, Obama also said: "[T]hat was how I guess you got your ticket punch to be the Republican nominee. But, he was right then and he's wrong now."
Indeed, in May 2001, McCain voted against the final version of President Bush's initial $1.35 trillion tax-cut package. In a floor statement explaining his opposition, McCain said that while he supported an earlier version of the bill "that provided more tax relief to middle income Americans," he could not "in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief." In 2003, McCain voted against legislation to accelerate the tax reductions enacted in the 2001 bill and to cut dividends and capital gains taxes. In February 2006, however, he switched positions and voted to extend the 2003 tax cuts on capital gains and dividends through 2010. Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform president, reportedly said at the time: "It's a big flip-flop, but I'm happy that he's flopped." McCain now claims that he initially opposed the tax cuts because they were not paired with spending cuts.
Contrary to McCain's assertion that Obama "has stated very clearly his desire to increase Americans' taxes," Obama discussed his plan for "a middle-class tax cut" as recently as March 13 and has also proposed tax cuts for the poor and senior citizens. As Bloomberg reported on March 13:
Obama's proposal would shift the tax burden further toward the rich from low- and middle-income workers.
[...]
The centerpiece of Obama's tax plan is a $1,000 tax cut for workers that would cost more than $80 billion annually and effectively eliminate all taxes for about 10 million low-income Americans.
That tax cut is "the signature difference,'' said Jared Bernstein, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington research center funded partly by labor groups. "That costs some serious money.''
'Corporate Loopholes'
The Illinois senator would also offset the cost of his cuts by raising the income cap on payroll taxes and eliminating "corporate loopholes,'' including one that allows executives of hedge funds and private-equity firms to pay a 15 percent capital-gains rate on most of their income rather than the 35 percent regular income-tax rate, and by cracking down on overseas tax havens.
"We have identified the cuts we think are available or the changes in our tax code that are available to pay for a middle-class tax cut,'' Obama told reporters on his campaign plane today.
Obama also offers a 10 percent mortgage credit that can be claimed by people who don't itemize deductions and eliminates taxes for senior citizens who earn less than $50,000.
His approach is aimed in part at giving a boost to workers whose incomes have been stagnant in recent years by allowing his $1,000 credit to offset payroll taxes as well as income taxes, which means it will reach lower on the income scale.
"That's a problem that faces a pretty wide swath of the population,'' said Austan Goolsbee, the candidate's chief economic adviser and an economics professor at the University of Chicago. "Targeted credits do not properly deal with that problem.''
Obama's proposals for middle class "tax relief" are further detailed on his campaign website.
From the 9 a.m. ET hour of the March 14 edition of MSNBC Live:
BRZEZINSKI: And not to be left out of all the back and forth between the Democrats, John McCain shot back at Barack Obama's charge that he's changed his position on making President Bush's tax cuts permanent. Senator Obama claimed that the Arizona senator had initially opposed the tax cuts and was flip-flopping, just to get elected.
McCAIN [video clip]: Well, it's very clear that I have voted to make those tax cuts permanent on several times. Senator Obama has stated very clearly his desire to increase Americans' taxes. He wants to raise Americans' taxes and put more of their money into the hands of the government. I want to keep it in the wallets and purses of the American people.
BRZEZINSKI: McCain has said he supports extending the tax cuts because the economy is struggling and tax reductions may stimulate it.
Were you a good Republican foot soldier? Did you keep your mouth shut? Or did speak out against the ignorant meme?
Just give it a rest. Conservatism is tired and worn out. They have no sensible ideas on how best to dig the country out of the very mess they created.
Liberals have better ideas and they're better ideas because we put people first. We don't measure a benefit by mere outof pocket cost. Republicans measures a benefit in terms of cost to the individual. The Republican concept of a benefit has no basis in morality. We need to be talking about how that money best gets put back to work for the individual. Government investment in her people is a moral commitment to upholding lasting freedom, opportunity and prosperity for the long term. You won't get that discussion from a conservative, they are utterly unfit to steward your tax dollars.
Investment in infrastructure, education, healthcare and green technology is where it's at.
I get your point, IO, that, technically it's just a "claim" because of that phrase at the end ("to get elected").
In the context of following that with an uncontested clip of McCain stating his and Obama's respective positions, do you think it was responsible journalism?
My point is to show how Media Matters framed this matter in an intellectually dishonest way, for the reasons that I stated above. To further substantiate my point, note how they cropped Brzesinki's statement in the title to leave out the part where she said "just to get elected." This is dishonesty at best, and it is far too common at this site.
That does not mean I agree with how Brzezinski conducted her segment. I agree that she SHOULD have mentioned that McCain's claim about Obama was flat out wrong. If Media Matters had made this piece about that, I would be praising them, rather than stating how they are dishonest.
Hey, IO- You were correct. I only saw the first part of the sentence and didn't think about the qualifier 'to get elected'.
To change gears here (not to win a 'point') I clicked on the ABC link in the MMFA piece (statement, 2nd paragraph) and the seventh paragraph, IMO, was more illuminating about misinformation. It states 'McCain now says allowing tax cuts to expire is tantamount to a tax increase on America and that would be bad during a period of economic turmoil'. Besides not explaining ANYTHING about that statement (granted he said 'I look toward that debate') it appears totally opposite of what he stated earlier. Now, if I, as an opposing candidate for president (or just myself) HEARD THAT, I would think that Mccain is using double-speak to somehow 'justify' his reversal.
On the surface, McCain's response makes NO sense. As an intelligent person, I would ask McCain to EXPLAIN what that means. If I were a reporter on the plane with McCain (who really might want to clarify what he says), I would use my skills to, first- find out WHY EXACTLY McCain voted against the cuts , then, second- try to UNDERSTAND WHY he voted for the cuts. I understand plane rides might get boring, but PLEASE!, don't leave your investigative skills behind! Seriously! Hold the PEOPLE asking questions about 'issues' accountable for probing the delegates to arrive at CLEAR answers that affoed no ambiguity on the part of the READERS of what they write or say.
IO. MMFA's piece was about that, you just changed your complaint to the fact that it wasn't in the headline. It's a headline. If it contained all of the information, it would be the article. Or a humongous headline.
Just to be safe; Hey, MMFA! from now on, make the entire item a headline. I realize it will take up a lot of space, and take a lot of scrolling to read, but apparently some people get distracted when the big blue print goes away.
Wait a second. This doesn't pass the smell test. Where did Brzezinski state that Obama's claim was true?
The only "truth," tee hee, she reported is that McCain's current position is he supports extending the cuts.
And to tell the truth, I would support them too, if I knew they were also intended for good ol working class me and my working class neighbors or my farmer pals I buy vegetables from in the summer. But I know better. I know they were never intended for me anyway. I know Iraq has a price tag and I have to help pay for it because it's the right thing to do. I know for rock solid fact that should another danged ol snake in the grass Republican get elected the Iraqi occupation will grind on, by popular neocon demand, for ever and ever and a day.
All these jerkwad Republicans should be lining up in droves to pay more taxes so they can support this ridiculous blood bath their 'boys' started. Y'all support our kids over there or what? You think sending your kid to Iraq is free? Have you seen the terrible cost? Death, dismemberment, suicide, divorce, parentless children, pysochotic depression. Not to mention the dollar amount.
No. Instead, these piss poor excuses for a patriot moan that taxes are too high. I don't care if you're personally for or against staying in Iraq, we're there and it costs too much to stay to just say you don't like it.
Make your vote count.
Maybe you should read the piece more carefully. "SO THAT HE COULD GET ELECTED" was Sen. Obama's claim, not MMFA's. Actually, more acuractly, it was Brzezinki's claim about what Sen. Obama had said. I don't know if Sen. Obama even it said it that way.
It's just sloppy journalism, no other way to look at it. She should have said [something along the lines of] "Sen. Obama claimed [such and such], in refernece to McCain's 200X vote/statement against the Bush cuts." THAT'S journalism, my friend. You right-wingers wouldn't know good journalism if it beat you on the head with a rolled up newspaper.
I may have overeached in my interpretation of what [I thought] you were implying. So I'll try again.
You say: Media Matters is faulting her for merely stating that Obama "claims" McCain flip flopped on tax cuts IN ORDER TO GET ELECTED. The obvious implication, which you seem not to be grasping, is that Brzezinski should also have added that this "claim" (i.e. that McCain changed his position on tax cuts in order to get elected) is correct."
No. MMFS's gripe is that the "claim" was in referece to actual facts and events that our right-wing press would pefer to gloss over.
You go on: Responsible journalism would dictate that she does not "add" this extra commentary because it would amount to speculation--not the part about changing position on tax cuts, which is undoubtedly true, but the part about him doing it IN ORDER TO GET ELECTED.
Again, you are twisting MMFA's point. WHY he did it is not the issue here. The issue is that HE DID IN FACT DO IT. (like you said: That much is indisputable.) And the way it was reported here, it makes it sound like a spurious clain on the part of Sen. Obama. She doesn't have to stump for Obama, but if she's going to quote him, she ought to take 3 seconds a provide the factual context for his statement. (Again - something to the effect of ending her bit iwth "Sen. Obama reffering to staments/votes made by Sen. McCain back in 200X."
For my part, I did misrepresent your statement, and you have my apologies for it. But I will stand by my broader point that (IMHO) you are creating a strawman rather than addressing MMFA's actual gripe.