About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Disregarding the facts, Fox's Cameron, NBC's Mitchell downplayed McCain's economic knowledge admissions

June 10, 2008 6:07 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: Fox News' Carl Cameron falsely suggested that Sen. John McCain acknowledged weakness on economic issues only once, "[i]n one of those marathon interactions with reporters on the bus," while NBC's Andrea Mitchell baselessly asserted that McCain was "obviously joking" when he admitted his lack of knowledge about the economy. In fact, McCain has made such an acknowledgement on numerous occasions over the course of the campaign, and when confronted with one such remark at a Republican presidential debate, McCain did not respond by asserting that he had been "joking" -- he suggested he hadn't said it.

14 Comments

On the June 9 edition of Fox News' America's Election HQ, chief political correspondent Carl Cameron said of Sen. John McCain: "In one of those marathon interactions with reporters on the bus, he said that, 'Look, I perhaps don't know as much about the economy as I should,' which was meant to say his strong suit is national security. Instead, it's become sort of a bumper sticker slogan for McCain's supposed admission that he's not up to speed on the economy." But contrary to Cameron's suggestion that McCain acknowledged weakness on economic issues only once, "[i]n one of those marathon interactions with reporters on the bus," McCain has acknowledged "on numerous occasions over the course of the campaign ... that he is unsatisfied with his lack of knowledge about aspects of economics," as The Boston Globe documented in a January 26 article. Moreover, at least one of the instances in which McCain contrasted his admitted lack of knowledge of the economy with his purported knowledge of foreign policy occurred during an interview with The Wall Street Journal's Stephen Moore at a "coffee table" in McCain's "Senate office," not during "one of those marathon interactions with reporters on the bus."

Additionally, on the June 10 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, NBC chief foreign correspondent Andrea Mitchell asserted that "it's hard for John McCain to get away from all the other things he's said about the economy, notably that he didn't know much about it, obviously joking, in a town hall I believe in New Hampshire, but that's going to haunt him." Mitchell offered no support for her assertion that McCain was "obviously joking" when he acknowledged his lack of knowledge about the economy. Indeed, when McCain was asked to explain one of the numerous statements he has made about his lack of economic knowledge during a January 24 Republican presidential debate, he responded by suggesting he had not said it at all, rather than state that he had been "joking." Presented during the debate with his statement that he knew "a lot less about economics" than "military and foreign policy issues," McCain responded, "I don't know where you got that quote from. I'm very well-versed in economics."

The January 26 Globe article included several quotes in which McCain mentioned his "lack of knowledge" about economics, going back as far as 2005:

"I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated," McCain told the Wall Street Journal in late November.

In December he said, "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should," as the Globe reported on its "Political Intelligence" blog at the time.

On at least one occasion, McCain has raised the matter himself. On Nov. 10, while traveling through New Hampshire on his Straight Talk Express bus, McCain was asked what he would seek in a vice presidential candidate if nominated.

After mentioning the ability of a potential running mate to replace the president, McCain said, "You also look for people who maybe have talents you don't, or experience or knowledge you don't, as well."

"What are those qualities that you don't -- that you wouldn't mind complementing?" asked David Brooks, a columnist for The New York Times.

McCain paused. "Uh, maybe I shouldn't say this, but, somebody who's really well grounded in economics," he said.

"I think I understand the fundamentals, I talk to people all the time on economics -- it's obviously a vital part of America's future," McCain continued. "But I know there are some people who have literally immersed themselves on issues of economics, how Congress works on it, the tax code, that sort of thing. I would look for that kind of talent not in a vice president but in close advisers."

"They are complicated," McCain said of economic issues, "and I freely admit I am not an economist."

Moore's Wall Street Journal article is dated November 26, 2005; the Political Intelligence blog entry, dated December 18, 2007, reported: " 'The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should,' McCain said. 'I've got Greenspan's book.' " Both have previously been noted by Media Matters for America.

On the April 7 edition of Morning Joe, co-host Mika Brzezinski similarly suggested that McCain had only once commented on his lack of economic knowledge, saying: "What about this whole -- I mean, I almost think it's been blown out of proportion, Joe -- but people are talking about the way John McCain, you know, once said, 'I don't know too much about the economy.' Is he prepared to lead this nation through a recession?"

From the June 10 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:

BRZEZINSKI: Well, they are, and the differences between these candidates are enormous in terms of approach and sort of how to guide this country into the future. How would you say the biggest challenges -- what are the biggest challenges for each one on the economy? What's going to cause problems for Barack Obama, what's going to cause problems for John McCain?

MITCHELL: Well, I think clearly for John McCain, the problem is the White House. Bush policies, the fact that the Republicans in Congress who are supposed to be balancing budgets and not overspending, spent so much that the Democrats got elected in 2006. That was at least one of the reasons; the war obviously another. But you've got the Republican Party now really tagged with responsibility for what's gone wrong, fairly or unfairly, and that makes it slightly easier, I think, for the Democrats. All things being equal, you see a preference for Democrats in those national opinion polls which say which party would you support. Change is a better message than the status quo.

So it is hard for John McCain. And it's hard for John McCain to get away from all the other things he's said about the economy, notably that he didn't know much about it, obviously joking in a town hall, I believe, in New Hampshire, but that's going to haunt him.

SCARBOROUGH: Boy, I'm sure he's glad he made that joke.

From the June 9 edition of Fox News' America's Election HQ:

KELLY: Before I let you go, what about this business -- Obama's hit McCain hard on the fact that he admitted long ago, a couple of months ago anyway, that he didn't know that much about the economy, and that's been a talking point for the Democrats and will continue to be. You asked him about it. What did he say?

CAMERON: Well, Senator McCain says an awful lot of stuff on the bus and on the plane, the "Straight Talk Expresses," that he often grows to regret in fairly short order. In one of those marathon interactions with reporters on the bus, he said that, "Look, I perhaps don't know as much about the economy as I should," which was meant to say his strong suit is national security. Instead, it's become sort of a bumper sticker slogan for McCain's supposed admission that he's not up to speed on the economy. He says that's not true.

He points to his record in the Senate, his chairmanship of the Commerce Department, where he dealt with a whole series of issues, and says when you actually look at the facts and look at the history, he's been involved in the economy. Barack Obama's been on the Senate for 3 1/2 years and most of that has been on the campaign trail talking about it and not doing much, at least in McCain's view.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by foghornleghorn (June 10, 2008 6:11 pm ET)
         

      McCain:  "Please take pity on me, I'm a forgetful old geezer who doesn't understand basic economic theory.

      MSM (with hands pressed firmly over ears):  "Oh, come on your maverickness, don't be so humble.  We still believe you're the most qualified to end this recession."

      Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (June 10, 2008 6:13 pm ET)
         
      If McCain thinks his strong suits are foreign policy and national security I'm surprised he can even pronounce economy.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by wzwriter (June 11, 2008 10:48 am ET)
           

        If McCain thinks his strong suits are foreign policy and national security I'm surprised he can even pronounce economy.

        Gramps McCain's idea of "stimulating the economy" is asking his wife Cindy to increase his allowance......

        Report Abuse
    • Author by zamfir273114 (June 10, 2008 6:57 pm ET)
         
      I think I understand McCain's economic plan: Stay in Iraq as long as possible. Make companies like Exxon, Haliburton, Boeing, McDonnel Dougles et. Al wealthy beyond belief. Screw everyone else and hope that money from the upper echelon (top 2 percent) trickles down into the lower and middle classes.

      I supported Clinton. Now that Clinton is out, I throw my support to Obama.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by NL207 (June 10, 2008 9:35 pm ET)
           

        Either McCain's understanding of economics or his intrinsic honesty must exceed that of Chuck Schumer and yourself. 

        A direct quote from the esteemed Senator Schumer:

        "if Saudi Arabia were to increase its production by 1 million barrels per day that translates to a reduction of 20 percent to 25 percent in the world price of crude oil, and crude oil prices could fall by more than $25 dollar per barrel from its current level of $126 per barrel." 

        If Senator Schumer actually believes as he said above that adding 1 million barrels of oil per day to global production would lower oil prices more than $25 per barrel, then why do he, Senator Obama, and Senator Clinton all oppose pumping oil from ANWR?

        "In 2005, Obama voted just like Clinton to outright ban drilling in ANWR. And later that year he voted, again just as Clinton voted, to forbid even an oil leasing program for ANWR. Like-minded senators include Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Robert Byrd, John Kerry and, well, you get the idea. All Democrats, and all irresponsible"

        ANWR holds 10.4 Billion bbls., enough to pump 1 million bbls per day for over 30 years.   It is a fair question to ask what Democrats are planning to accomplish by prevent development of domestic oil resources other than to keep gas prices high and screw the American people.  It is also a fair question to ask what YOU use for intelligence if you think McCain, who also opposes drillling in ANWR, is any different than leading Democrats on this issue.

        So who is it that is shilling for the oil companies?  McCain, or your Dem friends?  The evidence says there is no difference.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by Don Hussein Fabuloso (June 11, 2008 12:18 am ET)
             

          NL, can you grasp the basics of the costs involved in exploring, producing and refining that domestic oil?

          Since the rights main argument against gas taxes is that corporations don't pay taxes, and they'll just pass it onto the consumer, do you really believe that American companies are going to drill for oil, and sell it at bargain prices, while absorbing all of the costs involved in getting it?

          Did you believe that "liberating" Iraq was going to result in cheap gas for us, too?

          Geez, you wingnuts like to type.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by steeve (June 11, 2008 12:36 am ET)
             

          The evidence says that only one party has been begging for alternative energy for decades.

          Report Abuse
        • Author by BottleBlonde (June 11, 2008 9:56 am ET)
             
          The reserves in places like just offshore or in Alaska's wilderness are not really that large in the whole scheme of things, it would take a generation before much of that would be available in Alaska, and the larger point is...we're going to run out of oil for mass use soon. We need to find other sources of energy.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by wzwriter (June 11, 2008 11:48 am ET)
             
          Tell ya what, NL207.  You're so gung-ho about drilling - why don't you invite the major oil companies to drill for oil in your back yard?????
          Report Abuse
        • Author by wzwriter (June 11, 2008 12:20 pm ET)
             

          Here's the reuth about ANWR's impact on our oil supply, NL207.  This may come as a shock to you, but you've obviously been spoon-fed all the lies that the right has come up with for drilling there.  I've only posted the first few paragraphs from an 2004 MSNBC article - please follow the link, read the article, and open your mind for a change.

          * * * * * * * * * * 

          Study: ANWR oil would have little impact

          Heavy reliance on foreign imports would continue, agency finds

          updated 8:45 p.m. CT, Tues., March. 16, 2004


          WASHINGTON - Opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil development would only slightly reduce America’s dependence on imports and would lower oil prices by less than 50 cents a barrel, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the Energy Department.

          The report, issued by the Energy Information Administration, or EIA, said that if Congress gave the go-ahead to pump oil from Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the crude could begin flowing by 2013 and reach a peak of 876,000 barrels a day by 2025.

          But even at peak production, the EIA analysis said, the United States would still have to import two-thirds of its oil, as opposed to an expected 70 percent if the refuge’s oil remained off the market.

          At the same time, the report said new Alaska production would stem the expected dramatic decline in domestic production and extend the economic life of the Alaska oil pipeline as production from other North Slope areas declined significantly.

          But even the additional domestic production would not be enough to overcome increased demand, meaning continued heavy reliance on imports, the EIA said. Currently, the United States imports about 56 percent of the oil it consumes.

          <more>

          http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/

          Report Abuse
          • Author by wzwriter (June 11, 2008 2:42 pm ET)
               

            It's been a couple of hours now, and no response from NL207, meaning one of the following has happened:

            1. He's off somewhere plotting the next move with people like Shoes, Columbus, Another American, Proud Conservative, and Rino Hunter.

            2. His mother came home and he had to log off the computer in the basement.

            Report Abuse
    • Author by rtwmd1230 (June 10, 2008 7:41 pm ET)
         
      Andrea Mitchell, well known liberal and McCain shill.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (June 11, 2008 7:54 am ET)
         
      Cone on...John McCain doesn't have to know that much about economics. I'm sure he has many advisers in his campaign who have protected corporate interests for years.
      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.