About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

NBC's Todd ignored Elmendorf's comments undercutting criticism of his meeting with White House

July 23, 2009 11:07 am ET

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.

EMBED

SUMMARY: Chuck Todd reported Republican criticism of a White House meeting between President Obama and CBO director Douglas Elmendorf but did not note Elmendorf's comments undermining that criticism.

9 Comments

During the July 22 edition of NBC's Nightly News, White House correspondent Chuck Todd said of a recent meeting between Congressional Budget Office (CBO) director Douglas Elmendorf and President Obama: "Republicans criticized the president, saying they thought he was trying to strong-arm one of the umpires in this game. The president and the White House claim they were simply on a fact-finding mission." But Todd did not note that Elmendorf himself posted comments on CBO's Director's Blog that do not support the claim that Obama was "trying to strong-arm" him.

In his July 21 blog post, Elmendorf stated, "The President asked me and the outside experts for our views about achieving cost savings in health reform." Elmendorf also stated, "Of course, the setting of the conversation and the nature of the participants do not affect CBO's analysis of health reform legislation."

From Elmendorf's blog post:

I was invited to the White House to meet with the President, his key budget and health advisers, and some outside experts. The President asked me and the outside experts for our views about achieving cost savings in health reform. I presented CBO's assessment of the challenges of reducing federal health outlays and improving the long-term budget outlook while simultaneously expanding health insurance coverage -- just as we had explained these challenges in a letter to Senator Conrad and Senator Gregg last month. I also described CBO's view of the effects of the health legislation we have seen so far, as I did last Thursday in a hearing at the Senate Budget Committee and a mark-up at the House Ways and Means Committee. In addition, I discussed various policy options that could produce budgetary savings in the long run, drawing on CBO's Budget Options for Health Care released in December, our letter to Senators Conrad and Gregg last month, and my comments last Thursday. Other participants in the meeting expressed their own views on these various topics.

People have asked whether it was exciting to meet the President and be in the Oval Office: Yes, and my kids will be jealous when they get back from summer camp and hear about it. Of course, the setting of the conversation and the nature of the participants do not affect CBO's analysis of health reform legislation. We will continue to work with Members of Congress and their staffs, on both sides of the aisle, to provide cost estimates and other information as health reform legislation is considered.

From the July 22 edition of NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams:

TODD: Last week, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office sort of turned this debate on its ear when they said that one of the House plans would actually increase the cost of health care. Well, the president called in the head of the CBO for a meeting. Republicans criticized the president, saying they thought he was trying to strong-arm one of the umpires in this game. The president and the White House claim they were simply on a fact-finding mission -- Brian.

BRIAN WILLIAMS (host): All right, Chuck Todd with our preview tonight from the White House. Chuck, thanks.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by The_Cat (July 23, 2009 11:51 am ET)
         
      Ooooh, look! Somebody said something smarmy about the President 'strong-arming' the CBO! Let's just quote them, but not try to find out how easily it could be debunked. Thank heavens for the internet, where this can of lunacy can be caught and vivisected. How I wish we had more actual practicing journalists!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by shaggles (July 23, 2009 12:00 pm ET)
         
      It doesn't sound like there was any preassure from the Prez but who knows? The Reps didn't seem too worried about this sort of thing when Bush was in the White House.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by sluggo (July 23, 2009 1:06 pm ET)
         
      If Chuck Todd was anything like a real journalist (and not just a Press Professional Wrestler) he would have added the following to his report to Brian:

      "The President and the White House, as well as Douglas Elmendorf the head of the CBO, said that the meeting was part of a scheduled event for the President to hear outside ideas about health care reform. Mr. Elmendorf was part of that meeting."

      However, Todd is being paid to perform and not actually print facts.

      I wonder if Chuck really thinks he is doing Journalism? Self-deception is such a wonderful thing...
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Eric Jaffa (July 23, 2009 1:11 pm ET)
         
      "CHUCK TODD: Last week, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office sort of turned this debate on its ear when they said that one of the House plans would actually increase the cost of health care."

      The House Democrats know that providing federal subsidies for people to buy health care costs money.

      That's why they included a surtax on the rich in their bill, to pay for that cost.

      Douglas Elmendorf's statement that the House bill increases federal costs isn't a surprise.

      But Chuck Todd is acting like it is, perhaps confusing the cost of PREMIUMS, which the bill would hopefully slow the increase in, and the cost to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

      Joe Lieberman conflated the two different costs in this letter:
      http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2009/07/six-centrists-urge-delay-in-health-care-reform.php?page=1&ref=fpa
      Report Abuse
    • Author by vhw28672478 (July 23, 2009 3:13 pm ET)
         
      Todd is a joke
      Report Abuse
    • Author by elephty (July 24, 2009 1:57 am ET)
         
      It is very odd that many journalists feel no moral obligation to provide the best objective information available, and "let the cards fall where they may." The are "realists." This translates to the euphemism for cowardice is pragmatism, and the betrayal of one's readers with stories slanted to reflect the opinions of the so-called ruling class even though there is not a decent leader among them. They could all justify selling their grandmothers for ten-thousand dollars; after all, one must be practical.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by UncleGlenny (July 24, 2009 4:49 am ET)
         
      You would think Todd would do better after being Greenwalded on just this sort of thing....
      Report Abuse
      • Author by fishergirlusmc (July 24, 2009 10:51 am ET)
           
        Is it normal operating procedure for the CBO director to be called into the Oval Office to meet with the president and his advisors? The CBO is not part of the Executive Branch. I seem to remember taht when Cheny met with the cia director before the run up to the war, the Democrats were howling about that even though the CIA is part of the executive branch.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by tinka (July 24, 2009 11:37 am ET)
             
          The Democrates had reason to howl as you say.

          Vice President Dick Cheney's repeated trips to CIA headquarters in the run-up to the war for unusual, face-to-face sessions with intelligence analysts poring over Iraqi data. The pressure on the intelligence community to document the administration's claims that the Iraqi regime had ties to al-Qaida and was pursuing a nuclear weapons capacity was ‘unremitting,’ said former CIA counterterrorism chief Vince Cannistraro, echoing several other intelligence veterans interviewed." Additionally, CIA officials "charged that the hard-liners in the Defense Department and vice president's office had 'pressured' agency analysts to paint a dire picture of Saddam's capabilities and intentions." [Sources: Dallas Morning News, 7/28/03; Newsweek, 7/28/03]
          Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.