David Gregory’s Meet the Press interview Sunday with new House Majority Leader Eric Cantor should be required reading in every entry-level reporting class. Gregory showed what it means to follow up on questions and keep pushing until the interviewee answers the question that was asked. That kind of follow-up has been lacking in much of the reportage I have examined for this blog over the past three years. If viewers were listening carefully, they could see that Leader Cantor, as Gregory called him, was slipping and sliding all over the place, and said a lot even by what he did not say.
For starters, Gregory wanted to know if Cantor supported the president’s expected call for a balance between deficit cuts and new spending to create jobs. “Is that a vision you can support?” asked Gregory. After some blabber about the president having a real chance to lead, Cantor invoked the voters’ apparent plea in the last election. What they said, according to Cantor, was “we’ve got to shrink government, we’ve got to cut spending, and we need to really look to the private sector to grow jobs.”
Gregory tried again. The president is saying there has to be a combination of spending and cuts. “Is that a vision you can support?” Cantor presented a new phrase: “our Congress is going to be a cut and grow Congress.” Did “grow” equal “spending?” Cantor said he hed heard someone say this is going to be a “cut and invest White House.” The word game continued. “When we hear invest from anyone in Washington, to me that means more spending.” Finally, Gregory had enough and paraphrased Cantor’s comments: “You don’t believe that there’s a balance. That’s not a vision you agree with.”
The interview moved to the subject of where budget cuts might be made. Here Gregory pushed hard, asking the same question five ways to see if Cantor would admit that the Republicans didn’t seem to be ready to make the $100 billion in spending cuts they said they would seek. A few examples of Gregory’s persistence:
- “$100 billion, or not $100 billion.”
- “Are you going to live up to the $100 billion pledge?”
- “$100 billion. Can you make it or not?”
Leader Cantor finally indicated they could, but “on an annualized basis, we will cut spending $100 billion.”
“Which means what exactly?” Gregory asked. Cantor didn’t exactly provide a clear answer, mumbling something about how Congress is operating on a continuing resolution and the need for an interim step to “reset the dial and bring spending back down to ’08 levels.”
Gregory did not ask for more, probably because time was short and he needed to get on to Social Security and health care. He wanted to know whether Republicans were prepared to raise the retirement age and means test Social Security benefits. Cantor replied that the first entitlement to tackle was the Obamacare bill. “We’ll get to health care. I asked you about Social Security, though,” Gregory shot back. Cantor said that we have to focus on what we can do together. Gregory tried a third time: “Well, what are you willing to do? Means test benefits, raise the retirement age?” Cantor still wouldn’t say, mentioning budget chairman Paul Ryan’s road map, and that he and a chap named Kevin McCarthy wrote a book with a chapter on Social Security and Medicare.
Next came the fourth try: “But what are you for? Leader, I’m asking you what you’re for?” Cantor replied that Republicans were “for an active discussion to see what we can come together and do.”
Gregory then asked how long we need to discuss Social Security which he said “has been discussed for years.” The jousting continued. Cantor brought up his book chapter again. Gregory parried, asking for a fifth time about raising the retirement age and means testing—“those are specifics,” he emphasized. Cantor still didn’t say yes or no. But any viewer paying careful attention could see that the answer was yes—for some Americans.
- 1
- 2
I saw the same interview and had exactly the same reaction. Gregory did a fantastic job of pressing Cantor for clear answers; I would love to see more interviewers follow the same tack and press for clearer and more specific answers from our political leaders. We have a right to know where our politicians stand. Sure, it's easy to support lower taxes, deficit reduction, and maybe even smaller government, while retaining the social services we know and love. But these things are in conflict. As an electorate, we can't make sensible decisions about these important issues unless they are discussed honestly and with clarity by those asking for our votes.
#1 Posted by Rick Sullivan, CJR on Tue 25 Jan 2011 at 02:26 PM
Too bad we didn't have such aggressive questioning of leaders of the last Congress. I still would like to see that CJR compare-and- contrast of the treatments of the Democratic leadership in 2006 vs. that of the incoming GOP leaders in 1994 - or, as it is developing, 2010.
#2 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Tue 25 Jan 2011 at 04:48 PM
Cantor is a typical Demoblican-Repubmocrat: an economically ignorant, power-driven demagogue: an easy target for the aggressive muckraker. (Yawn.)
For the same reason, he is too spineless and clueless to lay out and defend what his allegedly desired results would require: for the federal govt to actually UNDO not only the health care mandate but other unconstitutional laws, programs, and departments that diminish personal freedom, or, for the individual states to NULLIFY unconstitutional federal legislation.
Cantor has the right idea about individual freedom, cost, and so on; he simply lacks the intellectual wherewithal and personal integrity to enunciate and defend the proper remedies.
#3 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Tue 25 Jan 2011 at 05:47 PM
Mark, its not a flaw ... its a feature.
#4 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Tue 25 Jan 2011 at 05:50 PM
Yeah, the democrats never got any inconvenient questions from dancing David Greg
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/david-gregory-axelrod-means-obama-sho
and republicans never got it easy:
http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/david-gregory-fails-factcheck-101
Meanwhile, on planet earth...
#5 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 25 Jan 2011 at 06:45 PM
Mark, its not a flaw ... its a feature.
Posted by Mike H on Tue 25 Jan 2011 at 05:50 PM
Beautiful! I can't stop laughing. Thanks for brightening up a tough few days.
A huge part of this obsfucation on the part of the lawmakers/politicians is that most of the them, if not all, have no idea what is in the laws so can't address questions with meaningful, cogent responses. They only know the talking points handed out each day, so when a constituent or media person goes off the talking point or wants details, the politician (and the aides) start talking in circles.
When you call your rep or senator and press for answers, aides will tell you that you are the only person who has called about that. This is supposed to make you feel bad so you never call again. Or they will say something on purpose to provoke you which starts an argument as they dance around the question. Then they tell you that you are being very difficult and hang up on you. They are trained to do this when a constituent expresses concerns that the politician doesn't want to address. A friend in the know told me that the aides are given the talking points du jour and also have a list of phrases to use and instructions on how to get rid of constituents.
Most of the talking heads on the "news" entertainment shows on CNN, MSNBC and Fox spend the hour in a shouting match with their panels of "experts" or politicians being interviewed. These pundits have very little clue either about what is in the laws and only use the talking points.
And, yes, we need the same follow-up as well when it comes to Democrats - in particular with regard to Obamacare during the year-long debate and now. What a bunch of spin-meisters with help of the bought-and-paid-for mainstream media.
Thank you for this article, Trudy. Hopefully it will cause more people to start paying attention and realize that the constant repetition of meaningless phrases is a form of messaging done on purpose so that listeners/readers will believe the spin and never get to the truth.
#6 Posted by dianne, CJR on Wed 26 Jan 2011 at 07:10 PM