Ignoring contrary evidence, Schieffer asserted McCain "suspended his campaign" because of Wall Street crisis
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 CBS' Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer asserted that Sen. John McCain "suspended his campaign" to deal with the Wall Street crisis, ignoring evidence that after McCain announced he was going to suspend his campaign, his ads continued to run; his advisers repeatedly attacked Sen. Barack Obama on cable news networks; and he gave interviews with the three broadcast networks the following day.
During an interview with Sen. Barack Obama on the September 28 edition of CBS' Face the Nation, host Bob Schieffer referred to the Wall Street bailout negotiations in Congress and said: "You and Senator [John] McCain took very different approaches to this. He suspended his campaign." However, Schieffer ignored evidence that McCain did not, in fact, "suspend[] his campaign." As Media Matters for America has documented, after McCain's September 24 announcement that he was going to suspend his campaign, McCain campaign ads continued to run; his advisers repeatedly attacked Obama on cable news networks; McCain gave interviews with the three broadcast networks the following day, and according to the Huffington Post, business continued as usual at 15 of McCain's swing-state campaign offices.
From the September 28 edition of CBS News' Face the Nation:
SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you this: You and Senator McCain took very different approaches to this. He suspended his campaign. He called for a big summit meeting in Washington.
OBAMA: Right.
SCHIEFFER: You stood back a little bit at that point. Now that this -- it looks like they've gotten some agreement, should Senator McCain be getting the credit here for forcing these people back to the negotiating table?
OBAMA: No. Look, here's -- here are the facts. For two weeks, I was on the phone every day with Secretary Paulson and the congressional leaders making sure that the principles that have ultimately been adopted were incorporated into the bill. I mean, if you think about it, those items that you mentioned at the top of the show, none of those were in the president's provisions. They are identical to the things I called for the day that Secretary Paulson released his package. That, I think, is an indication of the degree to which, when it comes to protecting tax payers, I was pushing very hard and involved in shaping those provisions.
But understand this: The important thing here is making sure that we don't have a photo-op session, because this is serious. We should not have been here in the first place and, you know, I think the critical debate that we're going to have to have between myself and Senator McCain moving forward is, how do we prevent this kind of thing from happening again?
And, you know, the problem with Senator McCain's positions generally have been that for all his talk about being a maverick and wanting to reform the system, he has supported, on economic policy, George Bush more than 90 percent of the time. His differences on other issues with the president he likes to tout, but they don't have to do with this fundamental economic theory that helped to get us into this mess in the first place. And if we're going to get out, then we've got to fundamentally change course.
HOLY MOTHER OF THE BLEEDING HEART OF JESUS! Nobody, but NOBODY with a brain believed that McCain's surrogates "suspended" the campaign. Even Letterman was smart enough to see that and he is not a "journalist". Shills like Shieffer are not only incompetent, they are dangerous. He is not the only one.
We saw this very same phenomena 4 years ago and 8 years ago. The Republicans unleash some new... though false... talking point, and the corporate media dutifully repeat it. Even after the claim is factually debunked, the talking heads continue to use it as a basis for their questions to Democrats. They drag these memes with them until after the election.
At least now we have Media Matters to unmask these flaks as ultimately either incompetent or dishonest.
It depends on what the meaning of "suspends" is.
As we look at the proposed trillion dollar appropriation out of the U.S. Treasury, to WALL STREET (and they insult our intelligence when they "talking point" us that the money isn't going to WALL STREET: yes it is! Every single U.S. Treasury check that shall be issued to buy these "troubled assets", will be made payable to a WALL STREET financial service comany or investment fund... how stupid do they think we are!)
As we look at this proposal, I'm drawn to what I think is the single most important consideration in this matter, which is actually nothing you will find in the text of the Bill: and that is the NEED for this bailout, or more specifically, the supposed CONSEQUENCES we would suffer, were this extraordinary sum of Public Money not siphoned off to these private WALL STREET companies.
I hear nothing but vague undefined non-specific doomsday scenarios being described by the proponents of this bailout, and I consider myself to have a fair imagination, and yet I cannot see the mechanics of how these disasterous consequences are going to hit anybody other than those WALL STREET firms, and the people who invested in them, and who work for them.
Specifically, I hear how "jobs will be lost" and "savings will be in jeopardy"
Rather than try and attempt a broad an abstract analysis of how (or how not) such things can happen, I ask you:
How do you imagine the failure of a company like Merrill Lynch or Lehman or AIG, to cost you your job, and toss you out on the street?
Truly, can you see the cause and effect relationship, the mechanics of such a thing?
I cannot! And I do not consider myself stupid!
All of the WALL STREET firms so far, and all of their troubles so far, have not made me once to think I will lose my job because of them! I can't see how my boss would give me a pink slip and say "sorry, but another WALL STREET financial company has gone under, or another WALL STREET investemnt fund is insolvent: I have to let you go because of that"...
Can you honestly say you can see how that will happen to you, can you explain the cause and effect, the mechanics, of such a thing?
Because I cannot!
And the same is true of my savings, and my house too: I absolutely fail to see the nuts and bolts mechanics of how those things will be lost, if these various WALL STREET firms are forced into Chapter 11, or otherwise absorbed into bigger and more solvent companies (as Merrill was) for pennies (30 cents or so) on their former stock dollar... which is and was a loss to Merrill stockholders and officers and employees, but not to me!
Why would I have wanted to bailout out Merrill? Why would I want to bailout other WALL STREET companies just like them, in the same trouble they were in?
This is bullchit... these people are trying to convince us that there are CONSEQUENCES here that will jeopardize our jobs and savings, yet they do not describe how this is so, and try as I might, I cannot imagine the mechanics of it happening!
And again, what I spoke of there, is nothing that can be found or will be answered, by reading the proposed bailout Bill.
That needs to be (I think) the focus of our opposition to the Bush Paulson WALL STREET scheme to steal a trillion dollars of our money (and leave us with higher taxes across the board, double digit inflation, and reduced federal spending)...
The focus needs to be for us to insist on a real and convincing explanation of exactly how we will lose our jobs and our savings, if WALL STREET firms like Merrill Lynch aren't bailed out by us...
Because Merrill Lynch wasn't bailed out, and neither their troubles nor their Bank of America solution to those troubles, ever once made me concerned for my job or my savings: and so why would I feel the same way about the remaining WALL STREET firms with their "troubled assets", just because the former CEO of Goldman Sachs has effectively scared the stupid wits out of the absolute worst spectacle of a political opposition the American People have ever had to endure, the present idiot Democratic Congressional leadership?
Explain the CONSEQUENCES that jeopardize my job and savings!
Because otherwise, I think that bullchit is just a fear-mongering tactic to steal a trillion dollars of American taxpayer money from the U.S. Treasury!
Sheiffer has made it very clear that he favors McCain. It's no surprise that he repeats campaign talking points even in the face of strong contrary evidence.
Isn't Schieffer moderating one of the "debates?" Maybe there needs to by an outcry for reconsideration of Schieffer's fitness as an objective moderator. The Obama campaign should mention this disconnect so at the very least, Schieffer is put on notice that any notion of ambushing Obama during the debate in order to favor McCain will be ruthlessly exposed. Maybe having some one put the clips of instances of where Schieffer obviously tilts pro-McCain together. Maybe circulate them on the internet. Go to work MMFA! Pair of pliers and a blowtorch!
Schieffer is so in the the tank for McCain and repubs. We saw that in the Wes Clark interview. If anyone is surprised this Shieffer is so Fox Like, then all i can say is "really".
Lol, more MMFA propaganda!
Ignoring contrary evidence, Schieffer asserted McCain "suspended his campaign" because of Wall Street crisis
MMFA fails to point out that to any reasonable person suspending a campaign means suspending further real-time efforts by McCain, efforts that cost McCain time that would be better spent in Washington. The ads that ran were probably already in the queue and required no time of effort by McCain.