Cantor explained that “anyone fifty-five and older in this country has got to know that their Social Security benefits will not be, will not be changed. It is for all the younger people, those fifty-four and younger, we’re going to have a serious discussion.” Finally, Gregory got some red meat. People age fifty or fifty-two, who have paid into the system for thirty years, might be concerned about changes in the rules of the game.
Next Gregory wanted to know if the Republicans have a plan for getting health coverage to more Americans. Gregory asked three questions trying to get some specifics, noting at one point: “The truth is, Republicans do not have a serious alternative to covering more Americans, do they?” Cantor said he disagreed, and continued with the standard Republican talking points. He mentioned “patient-controlled health care,” and focusing on “first and foremost, bringing down costs and adding to people’s choices and flexibility.” Then came Frank Luntz buzz words, with a new twist:
If we’re all really desirous of trying to deal with people who are in need and want to improve the healthcare future for this country, you, you can’t start with a Washington-controlled system. That’s the structure of Obamacare. It’s broad, sweeping federal mandates imposing the kind of health care that people should have instead of allowing people to choose for themselves and allow for the flexibility and choice.
Cantor never did discuss a specific plan for covering the uninsured, and Gregory’s time was up. Gregory can be forgiven if Cantor got the best of him toward the end of the interview when it veered into less controversial subjects like the president’s shift to the center and whether the tea party is here to stay. Maintaining that sort of pressure on a media-trained guest is tough. But it was a good workout for the next joust with Cantor.
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