CNN's Roberts failed to challenge Romney on taxes falsehood
SUMMARY: On CNN's American Morning, John Roberts did not challenge Mitt Romney's suggestion that, with "an economy in trouble," Sen. Barack Obama will raise taxes. Roberts did not note that, in fact, Obama has proposed tax cuts for low- and middle-income families and for those making less than $250,000 per year.
On the September 17 edition of CNN's American Morning, anchor John Roberts did not challenge former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's suggestion that, with "an economy in trouble," Sen. Barack Obama will raise taxes. Roberts did not note in response that Obama has proposed cutting taxes for low- and middle-income families and for those making less than $250,000 per year, or that Sen. John McCain's own chief economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, has reportedly said that it is inaccurate to claim that "Barack Obama raises taxes."
In contrast with Roberts, later that day on CNN's Larry King Live, King disputed Donald Trump's claim that "Obama wants to increase your taxes drastically," saying, "Now, in all fairness, he says he doesn't. ... But, Donald, Obama said 95 percent would be reduced under his plan."
During the segment, Roberts asked Romney, "[W]hat's the first advice you would give Senator John McCain about handling the current [financial] crisis?" Romney responded: "The worst thing you can do with an economy in trouble is raise taxes, and I really would call on Barack Obama to say, you know what? It's not the time to raise taxes." Rather than question Romney's suggestion, Roberts asked him about the federal government's bailout of the American International Group.
In its analysis of Obama's and 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."
Media Matters for America has documented a trend of the media uncritically repeating or not challenging the McCain campaign's claim that Obama will raise taxes.
From the September 17 edition of CNN's American Morning:
ROBERTS: John McCain supporter, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney joins us live from West Newton, Massachusetts. Governor, it's good to see you.
With your vast experience in the business world here, and in financial markets in particular, what's the first advice you would give Senator John McCain about handling the current crisis?
ROMNEY: Well, first of all, the Federal Reserve has taken the appropriate action to make sure that institutions -- which could, if they failed, hurt a lot of people -- that they don't fail. Secondly, you're going to have to make sure that we don't add new government spending programs and we don't raise taxes.
The worst thing you can do with an economy in trouble is raise taxes, and I really would call on Barack Obama to say, you know what? It's not the time to raise taxes. It is instead a time to smooth the market out, to try and rekindle the growth of our economy, lower taxes, and get ourselves from sending $700 billion a year to foreign countries for oil. Let's keep that money here. Let's drill in America. It's something Barack Obama opposes -- he's wrong on that one.
ROBERTS: Let me come back, Governor, to the point you just made about the bailout of AIG. John McCain says the Fed should not be bailing out these financial institutions.
From the September 17 edition of CNN's Larry King Live:
KING: Obama or McCain, who'd handle this better?
TRUMP: Well, I know John McCain, and John McCain's a great guy, a tremendous guy. I've known him for a long time, and I'm with him, and I'm with him based on the fact that I have great knowledge of John McCain. Also, this is not the right time for tax increases and Obama wants to increase your taxes drastically. So, this is not -- this is a very --
KING: Now, in all fairness, he says he doesn't. He --
TRUMP: -- fragile time. I mean, this is not the right time.
KING: But, Donald, Obama said 95 percent would be reduced under his plan.
Larry King is over matched by Trump and Romney. No way he could buffet their exterior.
On a slight digression, it occurs to me that Sarah Palins's vocal style reminds me of Romney. It is the fake and phoniness of the delivery while delivering the Republican talking points. So much reminiscent of a car salesman.
Her voice sounds to me the way Hillary's was always described: Shrill, Sarcastic, Caustic, Nagging, Nails-on-chalkboard, etc...
I'm not a huge fan of hearing Hillary speak, I just don't think she's an inspiring speaker, but I think that most of the criticism leveled aginst here were unfair at best, and more often ridiculous.
Palin, on the other hands? Sends chills down my spine, in a bad way. Really gives me the heeby-jeebies.
Again, what those on the right are alleging is that the only tax that can be considered is the Bush tax cuts that will be ended under Obama.
But that's not the only tax proposal that's out there. He has also stated that he'll introduce other tax cuts for people making under $250,000.
And when those falsehoods aren't challenged, it furthers the conservative agenda by making Obama look less truthful than he deserves to look, and look less appealing to voters because the less informed voters will think that they will be paying more under Obama. In fact, they'll pay less under Obama than under McCain unless they are rich.
Oscar,
I couldn't care less if he doesn't lower my taxes. As long as he does what is good for the country, that will be enough for me and should be enough for any true American.
Oscar,
You mean like George H. W. Bush's famous pledge "Read my lips, no new taxes"?
Yep, just like that pledge and so many others that politicians have made to get elected and then "conveniently forget."
Just had to get that unfounded smear in on Obama, didn't you?
There's a difference between a broken campaign promise and changing circumstances, and on top of that, this is irrelevant to the topic at hand. He can, and is, running on a platform of change. The fact that because of changing economics, he might have to make adjustments to his plans doesn't, and shouldn't, tarnish his image with reasonable people! Thanks for clarifying for us that you'd condemn someone (and call it breaking a campaign promise) for making a reasonable change in their practices. Luckily for me, when circumstances change, people in my personal and professional life don't accuse me falsely of breaking a promise. We were supposed to do a clinic this weekend that got derailed by Hurricane Ike's impact. I had made that commitment to do the clinic. I had to back away from that commitment. No one will accuse me of breaking a promise, because they understand that plans change sometimes and that can cause promises to be unkept!
When he can see what is happening in the US today, coupled with the fact, the forecasts reveal that he will be spending about $3.8 trillion more than the forecasted income, not including many of the new programs being proposed, I think it is foolhardy for him to say his tax plan will be "revenue neutral". I think the populus is getting tired of deficit spending and BHO will have to face reality and "renege" on a campaign promise and GHWB did. That cost him in 1992 and could cost BHO in 2012.
That plans might change has nothing to do with the fact that you made an off topic and unfounded smear of Obama, and to top it off, you were deceitful in describing what it would mean if Obama chose to do that.
Did you buy the word "smear" at a discount today, like you did "dishonest punk" yesterday? Watch your blood pressure.
It's 100% irrelevant to THIS discussion, Oscar. But nice attempt at a derailment of this point.
He may need to alter his plans, it's true. Democrats don't crucify their leadership when they look at evolving circumstances and change their minds. That condemnation comes from the Republicans, so I'm not even sure why you're trying to bring this up!
The issue is that only looking at Barack Obama's intention to end the Bush tax cuts, and not also considering the other proposals he's made about new tax cuts is misleading, and it forwards the conservative agenda.
Care to address that issue, and acknowledge the flaws of CNN's Roberts?
Sure Roberts could have grilled him, but again because Roberts and Romney will be among those hit by BHOs current proposal (subject to change with circumstances), neither one had any consideration for the "little" guy/gal.
What a dishonest post. There's no reason to bring up Roberts tax bracket in this discussion. It has nothing to do with Roberts's failure to challenge Romney.
Thanks for showing everyone that you couldn't even be honest and address the failure of Roberts. Thanks for showing that you support the furthering of the conservative agenda and even think it's justifiable.
I have an agenda that I would like to further, that of way to demand accountability of elected politicians who are more interested in continuing to get re-elected rather that acting in the best interests of the future generations of the country and getting spending under control. If that is a conservative issue, then so be it, but I don't see those (with few exceptions) who call themselves conservative acting on that agenda as I would like to see them act. To buy the fact that BHOs plan will only add about 8% to the National Unfunded Liability instead of the 10% of JSM is very shortsighted on your part.
Hey Thorn,
I don't know a single Millionaire that hasn't made their money on the backs of the working stiff.
He didn't make his money off the backs of the working stiff? How so?
Also Oscar, I don't understand righties obsession with Ted. It's not as bad as the obsession with the Clintons, but it is right up there.
Instead of a discussion about issues, you always throw out stupid things like that.
I'm not obsessed with Teddy, just the first name that came to mind (as a Trust Funder), substitute Paris Hilton if you want, or JSM or jfk that made their fortunes by marrying into them. Indirectly all their monies came from the labors of others if you will, but in the case of Teddy and Paris, they were lucky enough to have ancestors that knew how to work the tax code so that they were the receipents rather than the Federal Government (through the Estate Tax).
Their money came off the back of the working stiff. It matters not that they inherited that money.
So, you're wrong. His money comes from the sweat of a worker. So, give us a real example?
No, their money came from a tax code that allowed their ancestors to pass their money through escaping that sacred cow of the D, the Estate Tax. I think that was very selfish of the ancestors.
what an ignorant person you are.
Bush (and every Republican for that matter) ran for elections saying he will reduce spending and cut taxes. he only fulfilled 0.00005% of his promise. He did not reduce spending. He cut taxes only for a very few people and the economic result is in front of your eyes.
Is it your imagination that Obama said "will raise taxes on the people who provide the jobs"? You might have never gotten a 'job' from a middle income person but millions of Americans do.
Do you have a job?
THEY GOT THE MEMO ONLY CHALLENGE OBAMA AND HIS PEOPLE WHEN THEY SAY A FALSEHOOD ABOUT MCCAIN.