About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Casting McCain as opponent of fed intervention in mortgage crisis, Blitzer ignored his approval of Bear Stearns aid

March 28, 2008 4:15 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

SUMMARY: CNN's Wolf Blitzer highlighted Sen. John McCain's assertion that he has "always been committed to the principle that it's not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they're big banks or small borrowers," but did not mention that McCain reportedly said he didn't think the Federal Reserve "went too far in helping" investment bank Bear Stearns avoid bankruptcy.

14 Comments

During the March 27 broadcast of CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer highlighted Sen. John McCain's assertion that he has "always been committed to the principle that it's not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they're big banks or small borrowers," without noting that McCain reportedly stated that he didn't think the Federal Reserve acted improperly by extending a $30 billion line of credit to facilitate the acquisition of the near-bankrupt investment bank Bear Stearns by JP Morgan Chase.

Blitzer introduced the segment by contrasting McCain's statement with Sen. Barack Obama's March 27 remark that "[i]f we can extend a hand to banks on Wall Street when they get into trouble, we can extend a hand to Americans who are struggling, often through no fault of their own," saying that in the two "sound bites, you have a real difference" between the candidates on the question: "Should the federal government intervene, regulate more, or not?" Later, after Democratic strategist Jennifer Palmieri asserted that "the problem politically, I think, for John McCain is that he's siding -- he's saying, Bear Stearns, it's OK to bail them out, but I don't want to bail out people who have actually lost their homes," Blitzer replied: "Well, he actually said, to be fair to John McCain, he said, whether they're big banks or small borrowers, you know, stay out of it." Palmieri interjected, stating, "But the big bank did get bailed out. I mean, Bear Stearns did get bailed out," to which Blitzer replied, "Right."

Indeed, as Media Matters for America noted, a March 26 Associated Press article stated that the Federal Reserve "essentially bailed out the investment house Bear Stearns," and reported that McCain disagreed with the suggestion that the Federal Reserve "went too far in helping" the bank, quoting him as saying: "It's a close call, but I don't think so."

From the March 27 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:

BLITZER: On the economic issue, there seems to be a real split between the two Democratic candidates and John McCain. Here's a little example of what they're saying.

[begin video clip]

OBAMA: If we can extend a hand to banks on Wall Street when they get into trouble, we can extend a hand to Americans who are struggling, often through no fault of their own.

McCAIN: I've always been committed to the principle that it's not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they're big banks or small borrowers.

[end video clip]

BLITZER: All right, so there, in a couple of sound bites, you have a real difference. Should the federal government intervene, regulate more, or not?

Usually, when economic times are good, the public says, butt out. But when economic times are bad, politically, Terry, the public often says, help.

TERRY JEFFREY (editor-in-chief, Cybercast News Service): Yeah, well, there's no doubt about it. I mean, the economy is turning in a direction that's helpful for the Democrats politically. But I think John McCain here hit on the principle exactly right, Wolf.

He's saying that people who borrowed money that they shouldn't have and people who loaned money that they shouldn't have should not be bailed out by hardworking taxpayers. We shouldn't transfer wealth from people who saved their money, used it intelligently, didn't overextend, to people who didn't.

On the other hand, he's saying -- and it was right after that quote -- that if there is a systemic threat to the financial system or to the economy, he favors practical steps to make sure that innocent people are not, in fact, economically injured. And I think that's exactly the right principle.

BLITZER: Talk about the politics of this.

PALMIERI: Well, I think the politics are difficult, because a lot of homeowners that are losing their homes feel that they -- that it was because that the rules were set up, you know, for them to fail and that they -- and that it's not their fault.

And the problem politically, I think, for John McCain is that he's siding -- he's saying, Bear Stearns, it's OK to bail them out, but I don't want to bail out people who have actually lost their homes.

BLITZER: Well, he actually said, to be fair to John McCain, he said, whether they're big banks or small borrowers, you know, stay out of it.

PALMIERI: But the big bank did get bailed out. I mean, Bear Stearns did get bailed out.

BLITZER: Right.

JEFFREY: But he said it was a close call when he was asked about that. But the principle there --

PALMIERI: But --

JEFFREY: -- the question there is, they shouldn't have -- they don't -- the Bear Stearns people, and the bankers, these millionaires in New York, they don't deserve a bailout from middle-class taxpayers in any place in America.

The question is whether that bailout was designed to protect innocent people from collateral economic damage. That's a prudential decision. And he said it was a close call.

PALMIERI: Right. But I think, politically, it is difficult to be seen as bailing out Bear Stearns and not being as concerned about the homeowner.

And there is -- there does seem to be an interesting thing that -- about him in deregulation. You know, he -- yesterday, [U.S. Treasury] Secretary [Henry] Paulson gave a speech where he said that -- he suggested that perhaps we might need a little more regulation in the financial markets. And McCain is saying, we actually need to have less.

And this is a big thing with [former Texas Sen.] Phil Gramm, you know, his -- one of his supporters. And I don't -- and it -- and he does the same thing with health care. You know, he doesn't think there should be as much regulation on insurers and health care.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Old_Benjamin (March 28, 2008 4:17 pm ET)
         

      More corporate welfare. 

      Strip them of their "personhood" and then go from there.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by foghornleghorn (March 28, 2008 4:24 pm ET)
         

      And you know all the interest rate reductions that have been going on?

      That's not for the fiscal health of Joe Homeowner.  It's for the fiscal health of big banks.

      That being said, I am happy that the Fed is trying to do something about this crisis - I saw it coming more than a year ago, because where I live (Ohio), we feel the worsening economy before the rest of the country does.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by eniobob2631 (March 28, 2008 4:25 pm ET)
         
      I tune in from time to time to hear Jack Cafferteys questions,Blitzer is really hard to take,everything is a crisis with this guy.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by carlileb5935 (March 28, 2008 6:06 pm ET)
         
      How does McCain get away with this?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Old_Benjamin (March 28, 2008 6:15 pm ET)
           
        Going out on a limb here, but given 7 out of the 8 items posted here today highlight the corp. media's love affair with McCain, I think it's those media outlets which enable these things to be foisted upon the public. ;)
        Report Abuse
        • Author by plato (March 28, 2008 10:29 pm ET)
             

          Good point. Could it be that the so-called "liberal mainstream media" is just a myth?  Or, maybe the news anchors are essentially clueless?

           Plato

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Leftwingcenter (March 28, 2008 11:57 pm ET)
               

            Or both?

            Or that Wolfie (like Jack, Tucker, Morning Joe, etc. etc. etc.) are taking cash under the table from Emperor Rupert?

            Report Abuse
          • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (March 30, 2008 2:44 am ET)
               

            Could it be that the so-called "liberal mainstream media" is just a myth

            Stop it!Stop it! I may have to start paying attention if I can't believe that!

            Report Abuse
        • Author by Leftwingcenter (March 29, 2008 9:04 pm ET)
             

          Operant word, OB, being "corporate."  The primary--indeed, usually only--concern of corporations is maximum profits at all hazards.  If Exxon/Mobil wants to drain American consumers' wallets with $8/gallon gas, good on them.  If Wal-Mart wants to take a brain-damaged former employee's last dime on earth simply because it can, ain't that The American Way?  And if McCain and his Keating-Five-esque buddies want to bail out Big Finance while telling consumers to eat cake, while pretending to be fair-handed with both, well, what do you think corporate America will do?

          Yep--give him a free pass.  And another.  And another, and another, and...

          Report Abuse
    • Author by puttforever4682 (March 28, 2008 6:11 pm ET)
         
      What Liberal Media?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by puttforever4682 (March 28, 2008 6:12 pm ET)
         
      What Liberal Media?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by chas100 (March 29, 2008 2:07 pm ET)
         
      My problem with Blitzer is that he is so ponderous, and seemingly so egocentric, that he can't get the job done. Thus, he is to his critics either biased or a victim of ADD.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by pennst1143451 (March 29, 2008 2:09 pm ET)
         

      Issue 1: so here is some fact checking for the fact-checkers. Regarding McCain's actual position [washington post]

      "In an economic speech on Tuesday, McCain said he supports government assistance for Americans facing home foreclosure because of the turmoil in financial markets."

      As opposed to the blanket, throw money at everyone including those who acted irresponsibly approach advocated by the Democrats.

      Issue 2: this makes the rather large assumption that bear stearns somehow acted irresponsibly. the greatest fear banks have to contend with is fear itself since, regardless of what their operating state is, if people pull out their money, the banks become insolvent. few people seem to understand this point. capital outflows from bear stearns by investors and other institutions, coupled with the subsequent refusal of other lenders to do business with the bank, was the direct cause of the near-collapse. that is, the collapse was driven by the public's perception of the company, irregardless of what the reality of the situation was. so to immediately pin the "irresponsible" label on bear stearns until a deeper look at their balance sheet occurs to see just how responsible the company was for its own demise, which will hopefully take place in the coming weeks and months, is in and of itself irresponsible, and ignorant.

       

      and regardless, this isnt even a partisan issue really. i cant imagine one president, democrat or republican, refusing to aid an institution of this size given the intricacies of the financial market. this could have, by barack obama's own admission (see CNBC interview from last week), created a very dangerous domino effect that would have only roiled the markets more, i.e., made it even more difficult for homeowners to recover since interest rates would have increased as capital available for lending declined b/c of bank failures. but i dont suppose many of the ariana huffingtons of the world have really stopped to examine the issue in a macro sense, let alone have a background in economics and finance. 

      Report Abuse
    • Author by spadeholder (March 29, 2008 8:31 pm ET)
         
      I'm wondering how much money Big Banks have contributed to McCain.  Money talks!!!
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.