ABCNews.com and Time.com headlines mischaracterized Paulson's remarks as blaming Democrats
SUMMARY: Headlines on ABCNews.com and on The Page website falsely characterized a reported conversation between Henry Paulson and House Democrats as Paulson blaming the Democrats for failed negotiations on economic recovery legislation, "plead[ing]" with them not to "blow up" the deal. But the article to which both headlines linked characterized the exchange differently, with Paulson acknowledging that House Republicans bore responsibility for the failure of negotiations.
September 25 headlines on ABCNews.com and on Time.com's website, The Page, falsely characterized a reported conversation between Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and House Democrats as Paulson blaming the Democrats for failed negotiations on economic recovery legislation, "plead[ing]" with them not to "blow up" the deal. The ABCNews.com headline (shown below) read, "Deal or No Deal? Paulson Pleads With Dems 'Don't Blow This Up,' " while The Page's headline (also shown below) stated: "Paulson to Dems: 'Don't Blow This Up.' " Both headlines linked to a September 25 ABCNews.com article, in which the conversation was characterized differently, with Paulson acknowledging that House Republicans bore responsibility for the failure of negotiations. According to the article, after Paulson told the Democrats, "Please don't blow this up," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) responded, "We're not the ones trying to blow this up. It's the House Republicans." Paulson then reportedly stated: "I know, I know; it's both sides." A September 26 Politico article, describing the same exchange, reported that "when Democrats left to caucus in the Roosevelt Room" following a meeting with President Bush at the White House, Paulson "pursued them, begging that they not 'blow up' the legislation." But the article did not include Paulson's reported acknowledgement that House Republicans bore some responsibility.
From the September 25 ABCNews.com article:
Paulson feared the deal was falling apart, sources told ABC News' George Stephanopoulos.
As Democrats met in the White House's Roosevelt Room after the meeting with [President] Bush, Paulson told them, "Please don't blow this up," according to sources.
Sources say Frank was livid, saying, "Don't say that to us after all we've been through!"
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., reportedly said, "We're not the ones trying to blow this up. It's the House Republicans."
Paulson replied, "I know, I know; it's both sides," according to a Treasury Department spokeswoman.
From the September 26 Politico article:
Talks were to resume at the Capitol on Treasury's $700 billion rescue plan, but a high-profile White House meeting ended Thursday on a sour, contentious note after animated exchanges among lawmakers laced with presidential politics just weeks before the November elections.
The political breakdown came as the collapse of Washington Mutual Inc. -- the largest bank failure in US history -- marked another low point in the financial crisis. And angry Democrats warned that Treasury's whole initiative could collapse unless President Bush gets House Republicans to come to the table.
"Unless this fourth leg shows up at some point, this could fall off very quickly," said Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.).
At the White House, in fact, House Minority Leader John Boehner had bluntly warned about the lack of Republican support for the massive government intervention: "I can't invent votes," Boehner said. But House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) angrily accused the minority of trying to undercut Paulson by crafting a late-breaking alternative proposal -- with the tacit support, Frank said, of Republican presidential candidate John McCain.
Both McCain and his Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama, would leave the White House without comment, and the meeting was described as among the wildest in memory. A beleaguered President Bush had to struggle to maintain order and reassert himself. And when Democrats left to caucus in the Roosevelt Room, Paulson pursued them, begging that they not "blow up" the legislation.
The former Goldman Sachs CEO even went down on one knee as if genuflecting, to which Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.) is said to have joked, "I didn't know you were Catholic."
It was McCain who had urged Bush to call the White House meeting but Democrats made sure Obama had a prominent part. And much as they complained later of being blindsided, the whole event turned out to be something of an ambush on their part -- aimed at McCain and House Republicans.
From ABCNews.com:
From The Page:
Time.com and ABCNews,com are wrong again. Barney Frank has suggested this is a GOP Civil War , and they are underminding the President. It really shows a few things, first the media wants to blame Dems and second the GOP Congress is full of people who hate America and want to do nothing but gridlock and put America more at risk.
I really hate Republicans, I am so fed up with them.
It doesn't show "hate" for America. It's irresponsible and hyperpartisan, but that doesn't mean anyone hates America. It's more a matter of having priorities out of whack.
Call it what you want, you know damm sure that if it were Democrats the GOP Partisans would be saying we hate America.
I for one am fed up with them.
Of course some GOP partisans would say we hate America. But obviously behavior from a group you're currently criticizing doesn't justify similar rhetoric of your own. Their behavior is exactly what led you to be "fed up with them", as I am as well.
J- I know many are frustrated , but I do not believe the Republicans in Congress "HATE" America. To me that is a stupid thing to say.
I agree. They may not care about the country as much as they care about money and power, but without America, they might have to get real jobs to survive. I'm sure they all appreciate the opportunity the American government has given them to live comfortably.
I'm not surprised. ABC, the ones who brought us "the path to 9-11", stooping so low as to blame democrats for everything? Yup, not a shocker at all.
How is it even "both sides" here? Weren't the Democrats agreeing to a bipartisan solution? I'm curious what blame is supposed to rest on that side of the aisle.
I got one for ya. Dem bill wants to give the profits experienced by the gov (should that ever come from the buy-outs) to ACORN, which is currently being investigated for instigating voter fraud, among other things, in AZ and MI. But since they advocate giving mortgage loans to people and families that have no business owning a home, I guess that's ok with Mr. Frank.
Did Republicans agree to that, or did Democrats threaten to scuttle the whole thing over it? How would it lead to "blowing up" the deal?
It's one of the issues the GOP is threatening to scuttle the current bill over.
It sounds to me like most of the major players had already agreed on a compromise, though. Is it before or after that point that the GOP made this threat?
It is because Pelosi already had the votes to send the bill to W to sign.
She refused to do so because she wanted the House Republicans to sign on also.
Politically, she did not want to give them any political fodder by being the sole group to vote against the bailout and use that as ammunition on the campaign front.
That is why Paulsen asked her not to blow it up. She had the votes and could have simply could have passed the bailout -- or she could have said if the House Republicans won't sign on, I am blowing up the whole deal.
So what indication was there that she was going to pass the bailout without Republican input? I'm not sure that matches up to the conversation as it's been reported anyway.
I meant to say what indication was there that she was going to do either one of those things? And if Republicans refused to deal with Pelosi on the matter, isn't that them playing politics? Shouldn't Paulson be going to them about that?
It's because republicans never take responsibility for anything. They'll flail around for a few days saying it was everyone's fault and by Monday the 30% of the country that will vote republican no matter what will be repeating it ad nauseum like it's the truth. We've already seen Maxi pad and POV doing it, expect more.
Paulson did say "don't blow this up" to the Dems, as MMfA acknowledges, so ABC is fine. Do the Republicans have issues with it to? Yes, and Paulson was wrong to not initially recognize that as well. MMfA does the same thing it was wrongfully complaining about though, because it's subheadline paragraph makes it sounds like the GOP is primarily responsible for the failure of negotiations.
Just for you, here is exactly what Paulson said...
Thursday, in the Roosevelt Room after the session, the Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., literally bent down on one knee as he pleaded with Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker, not to “blow it up” by withdrawing her party’s support for the package over what Ms. Pelosi derided as a Republican betrayal.
“I didn’t know you were Catholic,” Ms. Pelosi said, a wry reference to Mr. Paulson’s kneeling, according to someone who observed the exchange. She went on: “It’s not me blowing this up, it’s the Republicans.”
Mr. Paulson sighed. “I know. I know.”
Source?
Sorry, working...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/business/26bailout.html?_r=2&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
Paulson did respond "I know, I know" to Pelosi's statement that it was the Republicans who were screwing things up, so MMfA is fine, and ABC is doing it's audience a disservice by misrepresenting the situation.
And you are doing the country a disservice by being one of the myopic party puppets who lives in the storybook world created by the same goons who got this country into the state it's in now.
This is unfortunately a terrible charade the Democratic Congressional leadership (Committee Chairs included) have gotten themselves into.
By not being appropriately critical from the start, of a sudden and dramatic (and even hysterical) scheme by the Bush administration to siphon off a trillion dollars of taxpayer's money from the U.S. Treasury, to cover the greedy and reckless losses of private financial services companies and private investment funds on WALL STREET... by not being appropriately critical of this scheme from the start, and by not examining all the details and all the ramifications from the start, and by appearing to get on board with the scheme immediately, Congressional Democrats have put themselves in the position of appearing both FOR the scheme and AGAINST it, at the same time: as Paulson and Bush are more than happy to make those Democrats appear as though they are the obstacle to the scheme, and at the same time they are being made to appear that they are the impatient expediters of it, by certain House and Senate Republicans.
I would lay all the blame for the position that the Democratic Congressional leadership finds itself presently, on them alone, were it not for the fact that this scheme was cleverly and intentionally sprung on them by Paulson and Bush and WALL STREET, just three legislative days before they were scheduled to recess for the election break.
But still, such a well-timed assault against their senses, in no reason for them to lose the same... as the economy is not suddenly on fire or blowing up or sinking, as we can all see; and therefore they can and should take their time with this scheme, which should have been their own initial reaction and good counsel from the start, were they not rushed madly (hysterically) into the situation they find themselves presently in, by the timing of the event.
Knew that was coming. the incessant cry it is the democrats fault is getting kinda old and lost its teeth. Completely glossing over who was in charge to let it happen in the first place.
and the truth hurts
http://www.komonews.com/news/29793759.html
I wonder why no hearings are scheduled to take place to get to the bottom of this mess. Funny, how our illustriuos Congress held hearings on steroids in baseball and are not holding hearings on this mess. I assume it's because BOTH sides have blood on thier hands[OURS]
Many of our leaders were all for lending money to people they knew could not afford to pay them back. Leaders of commitees took donations and their own sweetheart mortgage deals from these lenders. Isn't this on it's face a conflict of interest?
As for me, I am a strong advocate for TERM LIMITS and I hope as American Citizens we will all fight for this. These politicians are not supposed to make a career out of public service. The Constituition meant for the 'everyman' to serve a term and then go back to their lives in the private sector. How did we stray so far off the path??
We already have term limits. They're called elections.
Another brillant statement from Bill.
Your take on how this happened betrays your ignorance on the subject. You obviously don't know much about this situation at all. Your very first argument that "many of our leaders" FORCED the banks to loan money to unfit borrowers is ignorant and illustrates how uninformed you are. The (now failing) banks BOUGHT existing mortgages - in the form of bundled securities - from the lenders. It wasn't caused by giving mortgages to "people they knew could not afford to pay them back." This was all caused by the mortgage companies greed, loosened lending practices, ballooning real estate values, and repeal of the Glass-Steagall act. It was a perfect storm of financial knife-juggling, and they got their fingers cut off.
As for what you advocate, I think the above is reason enough to not care a whole lot.
This whole thing stinks to high heaven. I'm no economist, but this whole notion of bundling and selling debt seems to be just one more layer added on top of the financial system designed to provide more profit for these crooks. We're gradually becoming a society that manufactures nothing tangible, and manufactures wealth by virtue of pushing paper around. Such a system can't possibly sustain itself for very long. Somehow, the name Ponzi keeps popping into my head.
I was thinking "Ponzi" the other day, too. And when you boil it down, it shares the same characteristics, except that a Ponzi scheme fails when the money runs out. Our economy, based on promises and speculation, runs on a head of steam that continues long after the money supply has stopped. Unfortunately, we don't realize it until it's too late and we're in crisis mode.
And I have to admit that in my previous comment I over-simplified to the point of mutilation the situation as I see it. A better explanation is contained in the column here. (Look for "mortgage madness" and "the derivative disaster")
There is nothing wrong with bundling and selling mortgages. It gives your local bank the opportunity to free up more capital to loan more money and grow your community.
Bundled mortgages were thought to be safe, but instead were riddled with bad loans to people who couldn't afford them --- promoted by the U.S. government.
Not all the banks. It is just the ones who bought the packaged ones are failing first. There will be plenty more if things aren't rescued.
These leaders you speak of were mostly Republicans who went on to pat themselves on the back for years about how "they" brought about a new "ownership society"in America.
They bragged that because of their efforts, more people now owned homes than at any other time in our history.
...if you own something, you have a vital stake in the future of our country. The more ownership there is in America, the more vitality there is in America, and the more people have a vital stake in the future of this country. - President George W. Bush, June 17, 2004
We're creating... an ownership society in this country, where more Americans than ever will be able to open up their door where they live and say, welcome to my house, welcome to my piece of property. - President George W. Bush, October 2004.
"The Constituition meant for the 'everyman' to serve a term and then go back to their lives in the private sector"
It did? Where does it say that?
Neon,
First, fishergirl didn't say these lenders were being "forced" to make loans to people that weren't qualified for them, you just made that up or can't read properly.
You might want to do a little more reading on the subject yourself. The democratic leaders in the senate are just as complicit in this as the republicans.
In fact, they are ones trying to ram this bailout through in a hurry as to not appear weak. It's true fiscal conservatives that are calling foul on the whole deal. This bailout is bullsh!t and it's the democratic leadership that is pushing the hardest for it's passage.
You should read this article to get a better sense of the dem leadership's complicity.
http://www.counterpunch.org/sharon09252008.html
First, Fishergirl's allegation "were all for lending money" to unqualified borrowers is meant to imply that "our leaders" had some influence on who was given loans by the lending institutions. That's no less delusional than my saying "forced", a term which has been used by conservative lackies who are equally deluded about the specifics of the lending crisis.
You might want to re-read my comment, because nowhere in it is there anything which would indicate any partisanship. Ditto with my feelings about the bailout. In fact, you'd likely "sense" my disgust at ANY type of bailout before you'd infer from my comment that I advocate a bailout.
I've read Smith's column, and I understand her perspective as that of a socialist who's frustrated with the Democratic party. But she is not arguing about the complicity of those she names in the causes of the lending crisis. She is opining on their involvement in the bailout, implicitly by their associations with those involved in the crisis.
As willing as I am to cede when I'm wrong, your argument didn't bring up anything I hadn't already considered, nor did it introduce any new relevant information.
Again, "were all for lending money" in no way equates with "forcing" lenders in any way, conservative lackeys not withstanding. It's simply an unfair characterization of fishergirl's comment.
In respect to Smith's article, I think it's rather important to note, as far as Franks is concerned at least, he was against stricter regulations for Fanny and Freddie the results of which we are currently discussing. The complicity in the financial crisis is exactly what she's writing about not just their involvement in the bailout. She's pointing out the fact that they in no small part contributed to the crisis whether directly or through their associations. You might want to read the article again.
I never implied that you were for the bailout. I simply provided another view on the origins of the crisis as the discussion seemed to be focusing on republicans.
I'm not a republican or a democrat so you'll get no partisanship from me either. I didn't bring up the democrats involvement for partisan reasons. Sorry for any confusion or perceived assumptions.
Bingo! Good call edell. I still wonder how Christopher Dodd can show his face given the fact he had his hands in Fannie's cookie jar along with Franklin Raines, James Johnson along with Mr. Obama himself. I would like to know if Barack has issued a statement about his stand and how he feels about channeling the profits into ACORN his former employer. Truly, I really would like to hear what Obama has to say or how he intends to vote. Uhmm ... maybe "present". At least the conservatives and McCain are saying, no. Screw Bush, the Dems, and Paulson. I want more accountability.
Wow, TPaine, when you get on board, you don't do it halfway.
Ironically, Bill O'Reilly was first to blame Bush for the failures. Then he went on to blame both sides just before his head exploded.
Randy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDou01X5d28
Not only is the economy imploding, but the Media as well. We are witness to the complete collapse of reasonable discourse, let alone the provision for just honest reportage. Citizens depend on journalists who can give facts about what is going on "out there" to make intelligent decisions. When those kinds of journalists no longer exist, our democracy is lost. Stop looking around for Edward R. Murrow. He's dead.