CBS' Rodriguez allowed McCain adviser to claim unchallenged that Obama "has a plan to raise" taxes
SUMMARY: On CBS' The Early Show, Maggie Rodriguez did not challenge McCain campaign adviser Steve Schmidt's claim that "Senator [Barack] Obama has a plan to raise" taxes, even though McCain's own chief economic adviser has reportedly said it is inaccurate to say "Barack Obama raises taxes." Rodriguez did not point out that, in fact, Obama has proposed cutting taxes for low- and middle-income families and raising them only on households earning more than $250,000 per year.
During the September 5 edition of CBS' The Early Show, co-anchor Maggie Rodriguez did not challenge McCain campaign senior adviser Steve Schmidt's assertion that "Senator [Barack] Obama has a plan to raise" taxes. Rodriguez did not note that Obama has proposed cutting taxes for low- and middle-income families, and McCain's own chief economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, has reportedly said that it is inaccurate to say that "Barack Obama raises taxes." According to Obama's "Tax Fairness Plan," "Barack Obama's plan will provide $80-85 billion in tax relief to America's workers, seniors, and homeowners." Obama's proposed tax cuts include "a new 'Making Work Pay' tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family," a "universal mortgage credit" which "will provide the average recipient with approximately $500 per year in tax savings," and the "eliminat[ion]" of "all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year."
In its analysis of Obama's and Sen. John McCain's tax proposals, the Tax Policy Center concluded that "Obama would give larger tax cuts to low- and moderate-income households and pay some of the cost by raising taxes on high-income taxpayers. In contrast, McCain would cut taxes across the board and give the biggest cuts to the highest-income households."
Rodriguez also did not challenge Schmidt's claim that Obama is "against" expanding domestic drilling. In fact, although Obama's energy plan states that "with 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, the U.S. cannot drill our way to energy security," Obama calls domestic oil and natural gas production "critical to prevent global energy prices from climbing even higher" and proposes "set[ting] up a process for early identification of any infrastructure obstacles/shortages or possible federal permitting process delays to drilling" in Montana, North Dakota, Texas, Arkansas, and Alaska.
From the September 5 edition of CBS' The Early Show:
RODRIGUEZ: Thanks, Jeff. I'm joined now by Steve Schmidt, John McCain's senior strategist. Good morning, Steve.
SCHMIDT: Good morning, Maggie. It's great to be with you.
RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. So, what was John McCain's strategy last night, and what do you think he accomplished?
SCHMIDT: Well, what he wanted to do was talk to the American people about why he is ready to be president of the United States. American people got to hear his remarkable story, his journey from that 4-by-6 foot squalid prison cell in Vietnam to accepting his party's nomination. He's someone who has fought every major special interest in Washington, somebody who's put his country first, and what we have to do to change America is to stop the "me first" politics that you see out of so many of the Washington politicians. Senator Obama talks --
RODRIGUEZ: Steve, we heard all this from Senator McCain last night, but I just want to ask you, as I watched the biographical videos and heard all these personal stories, I was reminded of what Rick Davis, your campaign manager, said this week. This campaign, this election is not about the issues; it's a composite view of what people will take from -- about the candidates. Do you think you've focused enough on the issues?
SCHMIDT: Well, it will certainly be about the issues and Senator McCain talked about them last night: For example, $700 billion a year going overseas to countries who don't like us because of our dependence on foreign oil. Senator McCain has a real plan to start moving this country towards energy independence. We need to drill for more oil here, now. We need to build nuclear power plants. Senator Obama is against both. And if you're against both, we will never be energy independent. Senator McCain has talked about reducing the wasteful spending in Washington that is bankrupting our kids' future. Senator Obama wants to raise spending. Senator McCain is going to hold the line against tax cuts. Senator Obama has a plan to raise them. So, when we talk about the people --
RODRIGUEZ: Steve, I don't want to repeat --
SCHMIDT: Sure.
RODRIGUEZ: I don't want to repeat everything that Senator McCain said last night 'cause our viewers heard that already. I want to ask you in the limited time that we have left one more question about your running mate, Senator McCain's running mate Sarah Palin.
SCHMIDT: Isn't she great?
RODRIGUEZ: I know that you raised a million dollars -- I know that you raised a million dollars after her speech, so apparently John McCain's supporters think she's great, but Senator Obama's campaign raised $10 million. What do you think that says about Sarah Palin?
SCHMIDT: Well, I think she did a great job. She gave one of the great speeches that anybody has seen in a generation at -- out of a candidate from either party. She's going to have broad appeal across the country. She's somebody who understands what working families are going through. She's been one of the great governors in this country. She's the most popular governor of any governor in the country. And she's an expert on energy issues and it would be good to have an expert on energy issues who can help lead this country into energy independence working with Senator McCain in the White House.
RODRIGUEZ: All right. Steve Schmidt, thanks for your time this morning.
She's the most popular governor of any governor in the country
She just the bestest, cutest, most hard working, talented, smart, moral governor that has ever governed!
(See what they are doing with a blank slate. If it wasn't so disgusting, it would be kind of fun to watch the spin meisters mold this woman into someone people would actually think about voting for)
Mary E Peters, Federal Transportation Secretary stated todat that the Federal Highwat Trust Fund will be running out of money this month. Mostly cause voluntarily or not, we're driving less and their not getting sufficient funds to maintain the Fund due to this.
Gas tax holiday anyone?
It says that thinking people realize how dangerous it would be to have an Evangelical Troglodyte Nutbag one heart attack away from the Nuclear Button.
She scares the hell out of me.
Do you want someone that close to a nuclear arsenal who considers the end of the world a positive development? Thanks, but no thanks.
NO ONE!
Summary: On CBS' The Early Show, Maggie Rodriguez did not challenge McCain campaign adviser Steve Schmidt's claim that "Senator [Barack] Obama has a plan to raise" taxes,
Nothing untrue here, Steve Schmidt did say that, and Obama has said he will raise the taxes on the rich and corporations.
even though McCain's own chief economic adviser has reportedly said it is inaccurate to say "Barack Obama raises taxes."
More nonsense. If McCain's chief economic adviser contradicts Steve Schmidt, it does not mean that:
1. Steve Schmidt didn’t say what he said
2. Obama didn’t say he would raise taxes.
Also worth noting: Look at the phrasing here "Barack Obama raises taxes" that seems out of context wouldn’t you think? In context would be "Barack Obama would raise taxes".
Classic MMFA misrepresenting what was said.
And finally:
Rodriguez did not point out that, in fact, Obama has proposed cutting taxes for low- and middle-income families and raising them only on households earning more than $250,000 per year.
How wonderful of Obama, but it doesn’t change the fact that he’s said he will raise taxes on the rich and corporations.
There was no reason for Maggie Rodriguez to challenge anything. Steve Schmidt said Obama was going to raise taxes, and that is all true.
Don’t be fooled by MMFA’s conniving presentations.
and Obama has said he will raise the taxes on the rich and corporations.
You've summed up Obama's position very succinctly. Why didn't Schmidt do it? Why didn't the "reporter" expound on it.
Max's details would have taken longer than the 10 sec attention span of the average media viewer these days. Schmidt told the truth but didn't go into the details.
"There was no reason for Maggie Rodriguez to challenge anything. Steve Schmidt said Obama was going to raise taxes, and that is all true."--max
No. It is only half-true as MMFA pointed out. If you only mention what is going to happen to 5% of the population, but fail to make that 5% distinction, people can be misinformed as to whether it is likely to affect them. Of course, you and the McCain campaign do not mind that at all apparently. Why am I not surprised. Your criticism of MMFA here is pure self-serving nonsense.
Isn’t it time you demanded truth and honesty from MMFA?
I have no problem with MMFA’s charter:
systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda
But this isn’t what they are doing.. you see that right?
Isn’t it time you demanded truth and honesty from MMFA?
MM can do whatever they want. I want truth and honesty from the republican party. Your party is filled with a bunch of liars and hypocrites.
Actually, that's exactly what they're doing with this report.
Conservative misinformation furthers the conservative agenda to make conservatives look better than they deserve to look and liberals look worse than they actually are.
This posting is a clear example of conservative misinformation that furthers that agenda.
You understand that don't you BottleBrush?
Liberal Democrats (and Bush) grow government, they grow entitlements (for folks like you), and they will tax ALL OF US to get it.
if you think for one minute that Obama is going to make your tax burden go down, then that hydrogen peroxide your are using must have pickled that brain of yours.
When the McCain campaign says that Obama will "raise taxes", they are overtly implying, meaning it literally translates to something along the lines, "that most of middle America working hard will have their money needlessly taken from them." McCain's own economic advisor disputed this idea. I think with the debt we are in, that we will have to pay off some day, it really wouldn't hurt to raise taxes on the rich. Oh, poor rich people, everytime I think of tax day, just, trapped in their board rooms, huddling for wealth.
Go away Max Dharma. You haven't added anything useful here. MMFA's job is to point it out when journalists fail to challenge misinformation. The fact that it is literally true that Obama's plan would raise some taxes does not mean the journalist should fail to challenge the partisan's statement that Obama "would raise taxes." The journalist's role, in the eyes of those who prefer the press to serve teh public interest, should be to clarify the relevant facts for viewers, i.e., that Obama's plan would lower most people's taxes.
Max Dharma, this is what MMFA does. They say that they do this. Then they do it. There's no conniving. So, to summarize: Go away.
Exactly, and this is the problem I have with MMFA and why I call their articles conniving.
They are NOT reporting misinformation, they are pressing a liberal agenda under the guise of a public service.
If MMFA wants to be a liberal blog, then great .. but don’t tell me they are correcting misinformation, because that’s simply not true.
And yes, I am contributing something of value here .. I’m challenging all of you that simply come here to slurp up whatever MMFA dishes out to question it and debate me (and others) on content.
Exactly, and this is the problem I have with MMFA and why I call their articles conniving.
No. The "reporter" should have said what you said in your first post.
So Max,
Please explain somehting to me. When someone says something like ""X" will raise taxes" What does that phrase mean to you?
Also Max,
You really aren't contributing anything. You are parsing a statement into segments that don't take into account the context or the meaning.
So you are just trying to get into an argument over foolish things and not discuss anything substantive!
Either way, here's the problem. CBS hosted a McCain spokesperson who, not suprisingly, spoke in blurs. For weeks the McCain folks have been running ads that have suggested Obama would raise taxes on everyone (I live in Ohio--I'm seeing them daily), not just the folks who take in a yearly salary that's slightly less than a Cindy McCain outfit.
If there's any conniving going on it's NeoCon conniving. They are doing everything they can to distort Obama's record and platform because they know they have a weak candidate following a terrible President. All signs are pointing to disaster.
MMFA does what your buddies Sean and Bill are afraid to do--offer up information in context. The good folks who read and post here are given the complete story, not just a skillfully edited sample. You might notice that a few of us take things a step further and do some research beyond what we find here and share it when appropriate. Some even take the time to point out MMFA's mistakes when they occur, and, you know what? They make the corrections.
I think you're a smart guy who has been listening to the wrong people. Turn off the talk radio for a week. Watch news produced by someone other than Fox. Then come back and see us. You might be ever so glad that you did.
I know there are some informed posters here and I always appreciate reading their posts. In fact, I actually enjoy and appreciate all sides of these debates. I’m one of those guys that watched the complete DNC and RNC, and I didn’t spend the whole time bashing the DNC. As a matter of fact, I thought Hillary Clinton’s speech was great, just Great. Bill’s was quite good too.
I’m currently disappointed in my party, quite disappointed actually. Until recently I considered dropping from the republican party to become an Independent. I’m the first to admit there is corruption in the republican party, and Bush was a spending mad man!
I believe in small government, not the fat bloated pig it’s turned into. Heh.
I’m not a Hannity or O'Reilly lackey; Hannity is starting to annoy me a bit but I do like O'Reilly. (And I love Colbert)
I do my best to look at all sides of an issue, but something about MMFA rubs me the wrong way, especially given their “public servicer” façade.
Anywho, isn’t it Miller Time yet?
No, we believe you already started. In fact, based upon your contributions, you are in a perpetual haze.
Media Matters covers items that forward the conservative agenda. Painting a portrait of Obama as someone who will 'raise your taxes' does exactly that - it makes him look worse than he deserves to look, because reality is that he won't be raising taxes on most people.
In fact, the reason the righties say that he'll 'raise taxes' is because they are talking about him repealing the Bush tax cuts.
However, that's not all that Obama will do. He will repeal those tax cuts and implement other tax cuts, and the combined effect of those proposals will cut taxes for most people, including almost everyone who makes under a quarter of a million dollars!
It's the distortion of reality, a distortion that makes Obama look worse than what would be fair, that makes Media Matters cover this.
Anyway, I know what you’re saying, but I’m worried about the $65 billion a year to fund Obama’s health plan.
I’m also one that doesn’t think the ‘rich’ should be penalized for being ‘go getters’.
The wealthy are quite often the hardest working in our society and provide the jobs to others. Why do we think its okay to “tax the wealthy” disproportionally?
Why are we ‘okay’ when a politician says “Health Care for all!! And we’ll make the wealthy pay for it!!” *everyone claps*
I think that’s broken.
What a jackass you are.
Your argument gets torn to shreds by me, and so you try to distract from that fact by bringing up another couple of strawman arguments.
Universal Healthcare would cost less, in the long run and in the short run, than what we're doing now. That's the facts.
And the rich can best afford to pay taxes, so they should pay much more than those people who are barely scraping by. The effect of someone making $30,000 a year paying 10% more is incredibly hurtful. The effect on someone making $300,000 paying 10% more is innocuous, and allows 10 people making $30,000 to not be hurt. The benefits to the community greatly outweigh the costs to the rich person.
Top that off with the fact that the rich people keep getting richer, and the disparity between rich and middle and lower class workers keeps getting greater and greater - we need to have no more sympathy for rich people, and we need to have much greater empathy for poor people.
BB,
Don't bother arguing with Max. I think he is histybuff and sciencguy back in a new identity.
lol, good one bottlebrush. You couldn't tear up an argument if it were inscribed on a post-it note.
"and so you try to distract from that fact by bringing up another couple of strawman arguments."
I'm pretty sure you're parroting someone else's wisdom here. Please tell me, what strawman madam; hmm?
The wealthy are quite often the hardest working in our society
No they're not.
and provide the jobs to others.
Some do, some don't.
Why do we think its okay to “tax the wealthy” disproportionally?
They're are things to be done in our society and they have the money to spare.
haha! truly the values this country was founded on ..
Let the hard worked pay and let the low layers lay.
I'm sorry, but no. You and BB need to pick your sorry selves up and pay your own way.
I'm sorry, but no. You and BB need to pick your sorry selves up and pay your own way.
What makes you think we don't?
Loonz, you've been around here enough to know the answer to that. Every conservative still living at home, having his old man throw the want ads on his bed every morning, likes to take it out on the "Damn Libruls" before going back to sleep.
Cuz daddy always tells him that anybody that wants some sort of civilization must be a freeloading commie. Daddy's impression of liberals is based on his no-account boy, the Republican.
Our nation is not run on a 'pay your own way' mentality.
That is what many rich Republicans want and they have brainwashed many middle class conservatives into believing that it's good for them too.
It's not. It would be more cost effective to insure everyone rather than the current situation.
There are things that our country does that have costs, and those costs should be mostly borne by the people best able to bear them.
Here you go BB:
How would a communist USA pay for "free" health care and education?
http://www.cpusa.org/article/view/936/
Max, I have a link to a Reuters article here that provides an example of the exact sort of public service journalists are supposed to provide. The article prints McCain's sound bite about Obama's tax policy, but also points out the relevant context (that Obama's plan would cut taxes for most). It's in the sixth paragraph. MMFA's argument in this type of item is always that the press should provide the relevant context when allowing a misleading quote to be aired or printed. Are you against that?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080905/pl_nm/usa_politics_dc
I only all wish all articles were equally well constructed.
PS. I especially liked this part:
A record 38.9 million U.S. TV viewers -- more than one in 10 people -- watched McCain's acceptance speech to the convention, topping the 38.3 million people who watched Obama's the week before, Nielsen Media Research reported. Palin drew 37.2 million viewers.
:D
Max,
Did you ever stop to consider why? It's because very few republicans watched Obama (it was mainly Democrats and Independants) and it was an even split Repubs/democrats/independants that watched McCain.
You see, Democrats actually want to see the other person speak and hear what they have to say. Repubs can't stand to hear the other person speak, mainly because they can't understand what that person is saying, but also because they can't comprehend facts and truth.
I would have FAR preferred Hillary to Obama, but that's a topic for another day.
"And yes, I am contributing something of value here .. I’m challenging all of you that simply come here to slurp up whatever MMFA dishes out to question it and debate me (and others) on content."--Max
Point of clarity: That is what you "think" you are doing. I am still waiting for anything "challenging" to come from you. It appears you are just another typical partisan who thinks that half-truths are just as good as the real thing.