O'Reilly falsely claimed 60 Minutes asked McCain, but not Obama, about the "financial disaster"
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.
SUMMARY: On his radio show, Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed that during interviews conducted by 60 Minutes, Sen. John McCain was asked about the financial crisis on Wall Street while Sen. Barack Obama was not. In fact, 60 Minutes correspondent Steve Kroft asked Obama several questions about the financial crisis, including, "What caused it? Who's to blame?" and "Do you think that Secretary of the Treasury [Henry] Paulson has done the right thing?"
During the September 22 broadcast of his radio program, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly falsely claimed that in interviews conducted by CBS' 60 Minutes with Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama, correspondent Steve Kroft, who interviewed Obama, "didn't ask Obama ... about this financial disaster, OK? But they did ask McCain." O'Reilly then aired an audio clip in which correspondent Scott Pelley said to McCain, "You place a great deal of responsibility on this current emergency on the administration," and asked: "Are you saying that the Bush administration has failed?" After airing McCain's response to Pelley's question, in which McCain stated that the Bush administration and Congress had both failed, O'Reilly stated: "OK, and he's right."
But, contrary to O'Reilly's assertion about the Obama interview, Kroft did ask Obama several questions about the financial crisis on Wall Street, including, "What caused it? Who's to blame?" and "in some ways, this has been -- this past week has been historic. ... Do you think that Secretary of the Treasury [Henry] Paulson has done the right thing?"
As Media Matters for America noted, however, Kroft characterized Obama's economic agenda as "expensive," while there was no similar characterization of McCain's, even though, according to the Tax Policy Center, McCain's tax plan would likely add more to the federal deficit than Obama's tax plan.
From the September 22 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: All right, here I am. Now, John McCain was on 60 Minutes along with Barack Obama last night. They didn't ask Obama -- Steve Kroft did not -- about this financial disaster, OK? But they did ask McCain. Roll the tape.
[begin audio clip]
PELLEY: You place a great deal of responsibility on this current emergency on the administration.
McCAIN: Yes, yes.
PELLEY: This is the president of your party.
McCAIN: Yes it is.
PELLEY: Are you saying that the Bush administration has failed?
McCAIN: I say the Bush administration has failed. I say the Congress has failed -- Democrats and Republicans. I remind you the Democrats have had the majority in Congress for the last two years. So, everybody's failed. And the cozy, old-boy special interests that have prevailed in Washington have harmed the American people, frankly, in the most terrible fashion.
[end audio clip]
O'REILLY: OK, and he's right. And then they asked him, "Well, who would you put in charge?" He said Andrew Cuomo, the Democratic Attorney General of New York state, which is a good -- you know, Cuomo's a tough guy, and that was a good answer. So, I thought his answer on that was good. But the key is, look, these guys are human beings. This is a complicated matter. Everybody's gonna blame everybody. But what is undeniable -- undeniable -- is that nobody warned the folks. Nobody warned the folks. And I'll make the comparison again -- you got tainted food, the federal government, it's their responsibility to come out and say, "Don't eat that." You got a tainted financial system, it's their responsibility to come out and say, "Don't buy that." That's it. Because you can't know. I can't know. No one can know with 401s and all of that stuff.
Now, who's gonna benefit from this -- Obama or McCain? It's a wash. It's a wash. But the unintended consequences -- forget about universal health care, ain't gonna happen.
From the September 21 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes:
KROFT: This is the biggest financial crisis this country has had, a lot of people say, since the Great Depression.
OBAMA: Right.
KROFT: What caused it? Who's to blame?
OBAMA: Look, there were a lot of factors involved, but I think there is no doubt that if we had had a regulatory system that had kept pace with the changes in the financial system, that would have had an enormous impact in containing some of the problems that are out there. I mean, you've got greedy CEOs and investors who are taking too much risk, but that's why we set up rules of the road, to prevent that from spreading into the system as a whole. And, unfortunately, we had a lot of deregulation, and instead of modifying rules for this new economy, we just eliminated them. So, we've got to change our regulatory system. But, Steve, there's a bigger problem, and that is that the economy has not been working for ordinary Americans.
KROFT: Senator McCain made some of the same noises this week, blaming Wall Street greed, promising reform and oversight. What's the difference between the two of you?
OBAMA: Well, the difference is, I think, that I've got a track record of actually believing in this stuff. And, you know, Senator McCain, fairly recently, said, "I'm a deregulator." It's one of his top chief economic advisers was [former Sen.] Phil Gramm [R-TX], who was one of the architects of deregulation in this sector. And he's always taken great pride in believing that we have to eliminate regulations.
KROFT: Really, in some ways, this has been -- this past week has been historic.
OBAMA: Absolutely.
KROFT: Do you think that Secretary of the Treasury Paulson has done the right thing?
OBAMA: I think by the time Secretary Paulson and the Federal Reserve Chairman [Ben] Bernanke were looking at these problems, they had no good options left.
KROFT: Should the government be bailing out all of these banks and insurance companies? We're talking about hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars.
OBAMA: I think that our basic principle has to be that you don't bail out shareholders. You don't bail out CEOs who are getting golden parachutes and $100 million bonuses. That you are doing everything you can to protect taxpayers, making sure that people are able to stay in their homes, and that their mortgages don't go overboard because of bad decisions that other people make.
MM is correct, but let's face it. Pelley grilled McCain on the issue much, much more than Kroft did with Obama. Pelley spent several minutes with McCain on the issue. Kroft touched on the issue and then went outside with Obama to hug people.
I think I hear the world's tiniest violin playing for McCain. Did da widdo baby haf to anso some hawd qwestions? Awwww.
Since it was Republican policies that have led to this unprecedented bailout, then it makes perfect sense to ask the Republican candidate about this issue much, much more.
Also, Obama answered questions and they moved on, Grampy sort of blundered around. BilldO has been disoriented by his years as a GOP shill to think that an "interview" is screeching the same badly phrased question over and over until you get an answer that fits neatly into your own fiction.
"Are we now faulting O'Reilly for not knowing every question in every single 60 Minutes interview of every candidate? Please ..."
Well played, Gov.
No, not every question in every interview, just the ones he uses for direct comparisons. I guess it shows how much work he and his staff put into research.
Agreed. I was just poking fun at Shoes.
As far as O'Reilly and his staff go, they don't care about facts. I bet O'Reilly would stand by his assertion that Obama was not asked about the financial crisis. He could read this very item, listen to the clip again for the first time and insist that Obama was not asked about it. It's how his brain works. He's an egomaniac.
That's funny, I watched it and they were way harder on Obama than on McCain. Kroft was too busy licking McCain's butt about Palin to ask a difficult question.
Oh, and this one is for you...
snoopy: "That's funny, I watched it and they were way harder on Obama than on McCain. Kroft was too busy licking McCain's butt about Palin to ask a difficult question."
You watched it, did you? Honestly? Because Scott Pelley interviewed John McCain; Kroft interviewed Obama.
Busted!
Kroft, Pelley, so what. McCain got kid glove treatment with a happy ending while Obama got grilled, and as always regardless of the truth you have to lie because your hatred of MMFA drives your ignorance.
George Orwell is rolling in his grave becuase of this guy.
I begin to think that George Orwell may have been a seer of the future and had BillO and FoxNoise in mind when he wrote 1984?
Ok..... it was the Nazi Party..... other than the mass murder of 6 million Jews and other minorities.... there is no difference between the old Fascist Party in Germany and the rightwing corporate ideology in America today.
O'Reilly does stuff like this all the time. You know, Bill, it might help if you actually watched or listened to tape of what people have said instead of relying on a summary by a flunky producer. If you're going to comment on what someone said or didn't say at least know what you're talking about. Too busy, Bill...get a real job, then.
Irony, you are right. I love how Bill always says "Do your own research: like he did to Paul Krugman ( who I love) when he was on Russerts show a few years back. He would say "DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH". Yet OLielly never does his own research and sends his gestapo guards out to harass people.
What a jerk.
I saw the 60 Minute interview so when BillO claimed that Obama was not asked about the financial mess, I just shook my head in disbelief because I knew he was going to get called out on it. How stooopid can he be? BillO must count on his sheeple being dumb and uninformed. BillO has a habit of lying to make it look like Obama is getting a pass while McCain is being raked over the coals. Sorry BillO, MMFA and the people who are paying attention just caught you a$$ in yet another big fat lie.
BillO has NO respect for the folks. He lies to them when it's convenient for his agenda. He has no shame. He's a 'bold, fresh piece of something'...that's for sure.
The other day I heard Rush Limbaugh tell his listeners that the Iraq Hydrocarbon Law was an environmental law. I almost wrecked the car laughing... The so-called Iraq Hydrocarbon Law deals with the sharing of oil revenues among the Shia, Sunnis and Kurds and is only one of the most important piece of legislation pending in Iraq...and in fact its passage was considered one of the three most important benchmarks for THE SURGE!
And, uhhh, BTW... the law still hasn't passed.
How about Phil Gramm? Oh wait..... they put him next to Cheney's rock to live under until after the election?
How sad a day it will be if Grampy wins.... Phil will likely be the SecTres and all these bastards that have ruined our economy by stealing and plundering will all get away with it!
However, after Obama wins.... On Jan 21 I hope Obama sends his DOJ (with the full weight of the law (or whats left of it)) to allow the chips fall where they may....
That is of course, if the Dems want our country back from the clutches of those that would do us all harm?
Capt.
You are letting your political convictions color your facts. Clinton signed the Graham Bill. Raines, Goerlick, and Johnson took millions from Fannie Mae. Democrats blocked efforts to reform both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
To blame Republicans solely for this mess is to ignore reality.
AA
Do you have any sources to back up that Goerlick took millions?
Although Gorelick had no background in finance, she joined Fannie Mae in 1997 as vice chair and departed in 2003. For her trouble, Gorelick collected a staggering $26.4 million in total compensation, including bonuses.
http://www.slate.com/id/2200160/
AA
There are also Republcans in that source you cited, and that was in 2003 she left , this is not current. That was 5 years ago.
Republicans also proved willing to serve Fannie Mae. Robert B. Zoellick, current head of the World Bank, has served President Reagan, President Bush 1, and President Bush 2 as a trade representative, deputy secretary of state, deputy secretary of the treasury, deputy chief of staff, and so on. Zoellick's first Fannie Mae tour of duty was from 1983 to 1985, when he was a vice president. His second tour was 1993 to 1997, and his title was executive vice president in charge of lobbying, public affairs, and affordable housing. According to a July 23, 1997, report in the American Banker, Zoellick "has used his close ties to Republicans in Congress, such as Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., to defend Fannie Mae from new taxes."
John Buckley worked at Fannie Mae for almost 10 years (1991-2001) but took a leave of absence to serve as Bob Dole's communications director during his 1996 run for the presidency. Before Fannie Mae, he worked at the National Republican Congressional Committee, served as press secretary to Rep. Jack Kemp, R-N.Y., deputy press secretary during the Reagan-Bush 1984 campaign, and press secretary to Lewis Lehrman when he ran for governor of New York. He hails from the political Buckley family, his uncles being William F. and James.
Another American,
Please tell us which efforts at reform of Fannie and Freddie that democrats blocked?
If you don't know--which I suspect is highly likely--just make something up.
To blame Republicans solely for this mess is to ignore reality.
REALITY IS:
19 McCain Fundraisers & Advisers Lobbied For Fannie Mae Or Freddie Mac.
Six of his advisers and fundraisers lobbied for Freddie Mac including: McCain’s Current Chief of Staff Mark Buse lobbied for Freddie Mac from 2003-2004, earning $460,000. [Senate Lobbying Disclosures], top McCain adviser Charles Black. Black lobbied for Freddie Mac from 1999-2004, earning the firm he co-owns $820,000. [The News & Observer (Raleigh, North Carolina), 8/31/08; Senate Lobbying Disclosures], Carlos Bonilla, Al D’Amato, Juleanna Glover Weiss, Susan Molinari.
Thirteen of them lobbied for Fannie Mae including: McCain’s Congressional Liaison John Green. Green lobbied for Fannie Mae from 2004-2007, earning over $1 million from Fannie Mae, Head of VP Search Team AB Culvahouse. McCain tapped Arthur B. Culvahouse Jr., the former Reagan administration official, to head his search for a running mate. Currently a partner at O’Melveny & Myers, Culvahouse lobbied on behalf of Fannie Mae in 1999, 2003 and 2004, according to Senate records. [Politico.com, 7/16/08; Senate Lobbying Disclosures], Wayne Berman. McCain Senior Adviser Continues to Lobby for Fannie Mae. Wayne Berman has lobbied for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from 2004 through the 2nd quarter of 2008. Their firm earned over $100,000 from Freddie Mac in 2004 and over $1 million from Fannie Mae. [Senate Lobbying Disclosures], Kirk Blalock, Alberto Cardenas, Kirsten Chadwick, Richard Holht, Kate Hull, Aleix Jarvis, Tom Loeffler. Loeffler lobbied for Fannie Mae in 1999. His firm earned $40,000 from Fannie Mae that year. [Senate Lobbying Disclosures, 1999; New York Times, 7/16/08; Newsweek, 5/26/08], Peter Madigan, Allison McSlarro, McCain’s economic adviserAquiles Suarez. Aquiles Suarez worked as Fannie’s director of government and industry relations.. [John McCain.com, Senate Lobbying Disclosures]
MCCAIN HAS EXTENSIVE TIES TO AIG AS WELL:
McCain Fundraisers, Advisors Include Eight AIG Lobbyists & Executives
Edmund Lee, AIG Executive is a bundler, Susan Nelson, finance director, was an AIG lobbyist from 2004-2005, Wayne Berman, vice-chair, was an AIG lobbyist from 2004-2007, John Green, Capitol Hill liaison, was an AIG lobbyist from 2004-2007, Bundler James Pitts was an AIG lobbyist from 2006-2007, Bundler Tim Powers was an AIG lobbyist in 2001, Fundraiser Kate Hull was an AIG lobbyist from 2002-2007, Bundler Phil Anderson was an AIG lobbyist from 2006-2007
Pearlene,
I agree that there is plenty of blame to pass around. But to say it is only the fault of Republicans is a falsehood.
ps. There is a difference between lobbying for an organization and heading it. I imagine if you looked, you'll see that these lobbyists and their organizations did indeed lobby for many other interests as well.
I found this in today's Powerlineblog.com
... Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Commission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even "on the page" of allowable interpretations.
Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a "world-class regulator" that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.
The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie "continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road," he said. "We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk."
What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.
If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.
But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter. We now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.
Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000. ...
There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.
Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.
I found this in today's Powerlineblog.com
I stopped reading your post right there. You're quite gullible. Kind of sad, really. Please stop posting partisan bulls***.
fog,
Sorry to offend your delicate, left wing sensibility. :-)
ps. There is no need to tell me you stopped reading any of my posts just because you don't like where they came from.
When you write to tell me about it, (as you often do,) it looks to me that you are saying you are so dogmatic that you cannot bear to look at anything that disagrees with your point of view.
Either that or you cannot argue the message... so you attack the messenger.
pps. If you got this far, I hope you have pleasant day!
Interesting.
No mention of Obama's Stop Fraud Act.
No mention of Obama's March '07 appeal to Bernanke and Paulson about the need to do something about the mortgage crisis.
Now why would that be? Because whoever wrote your beloved piece is a political hack with no interest in bringing people the whole story.
Pete,
Speaking of the whole story, your first link does not say if what happened to the Stop Fraud Act. It also does not make clear at all, if this Act would have done anything to avert this particular crisis.
Your second link, is only BHO trying to bail out homeowners who cannot meet their loan obligations and have been foreclosed. IMHO, it was pure political left wing pandering by BHO.
I decided to look up the bill and according to the library of congress the bill passed the committee vote. It was never scheduled for debate (keep in mind that republicans controlled the senate in 2005) most likely because (my opinion) while approved by the committee in late July, they were about to go into recess. There appeared to be democratic opposition to the portfolio reduction but the republican controlled senate had no reason to not schedule it for debate.
AA,
I just got home from my minimum wage job (to which I am way, way, way to qualified to be wasting my time doing but have no choice because the economy we have SUCKS!) and I was going to reply to you on your reply to me..... but reading the posts that have been given back (Thank you: 8HomesMcCain, Pearlene, JLyons, foghorn, pete, and snoopy) I don't think I have much more to add..... as the facts given certainly speak for themselves.
I did read the copy and pasted article you left and was willing to read it to the end but I stopped at "by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison" and suddenly realized that it was the crap foghorn says it is..... by that name alone!
Nice try though.......
I'm glad you have a job and hope you can find a higher paying one soon.
Like I mentioned to fog, it is a sign of weakness to attack the messenger. It means you cannot argue the message.
ps. Like I also told fog, You don't need to tell me you didn't read it. As if... :-)
Here's a tip - when supporting one of your "opinions", try to use credible sources. Powerline is NOT credible. When you do that, then you, in fact, will become credible and your opinions will be considered.
Have a nice day.
I do not think O'Reilly is smart enough to talk about gardening or cleaning.
But he has the unique power of determining who among us is a patriot and who is a pinhead.
You're right J...
I certainly didn't mean to belittle gardeners with my post. God bless all who love the land. And I do mean that.
Anything O'Reilly touches turns to dust.
Nice picture by Media Matters. O'Reilly looks like a hapless moron, indeed. Surrounded with his little decals and his headphones. He's almost a figure of pity.