Meet the Press host David Gregory helped Republican Governors Scott Walker (WI) and John Kasich (OH) take undeserved credit for the job recoveries in their states. In separate Meet the Press interviews, both governors took credit for an increase in jobs during their term, but Gregory did not point out that jobs were already on the upswing before either of them came into office.
NBC host David Gregory covered up a distortion of the Obama administration's tax plan by Bob McDonnell, letting the Republican Virginia governor claim that Vice President Joe Biden said the administration plans to "raise your taxes about $2 trillion" when in fact the administration has only proposed raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans.
McDonnell appeared on Meet the Press today to discuss, among other things, the October 11 vice-presidential debate. Commenting on Biden's performance, McDonnell claimed that Biden's remarks affirmed that "absolutely, Obama and Biden are going to raise your taxes about $2 trillion over the next couple months -- over the next four years."
Gregory made no effort to point out that McDonnell misstated the administration's tax plan. Biden did not say the administration will raise everyone's taxes, but very clearly restated the Obama administration's stance that tax cuts should expire for the wealthiest Americans, while tax cuts for middle-class Americans should be extended.
Indeed, during the vice-presidential debate, moderator Martha Raddatz, a reporter for ABC, asked Biden, "If your ticket is elected, who will pay more in taxes? Who will pay less?" The vice president replied that the Obama administration wants to "extend permanently the middle-class [Bush] tax cut" and allow "the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy" to expire:
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: The middle class will pay less, and people making a million dollars or more will begin to contribute slightly more. Let me give you one concrete example: the continuation of the Bush tax cuts. We're arguing that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy should be allowed to expire. Of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, 800 million -- billion dollars of that goes to people making a minimum of a million dollars. We see no justification in these economic times for those -- and they're patriotic Americans. They're -- they're not asking for this continued tax cut; they're not suggesting it; but my friends are insisting on it. A hundred and twenty thousand families, by continuing that tax cut, will get an additional $500 billion in tax relief in the next 10 years, and their income is an average of $8 million.
We want to extend permanently the middle-class tax cut for -- permanently from the Bush middle-class tax cut.
Gregory also made no mention of the fact that analysts have said it's the Romney-Ryan plan that could actually raise taxes on the middle class. Studies from the Tax Policy Center concluded that Romney's tax plan would almost certainly have to "increase the tax burdens on middle- and/or lower-income taxpayers" in order to remain revenue neutral.
Liz Cheney claimed on Fox News today that President Obama "refuses to give a meeting to" Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But Netanyahu himself stated hours earlier on NBC's Meet The Press that Obama has "met with me more than any other leader in the world and I appreciate that."
While appearing on America's News HQ, Cheney was asked for examples of America not being a reliable ally. Cheney responded by claiming that Obama "has reportedly offered to host a meeting with the Muslim Brotherhood president of Egypt" but "refuses to give a meeting to Prime Minister Netanyahu."
Today on NBC's Meet The Press, Newt Gingrich became the latest conservative to revive the oft-debunked falsehood that President Barack Obama voted as a state legislator to allow doctors to "kill babies." Neither Meet The Press host David Gregory nor the other members of the panel pushed back on this offensive smear.
Gingrich criticized Republican leaders for calling for Rep. Todd Akin to drop out of the Missouri Senate race for comments he made about "legitimate rape" and abortion. In defending Akin, Gingrich claimed that Obama holds the truly extreme position because he voted to allow doctors to "kill babies":
NEWT GINGRICH: The President of the United States voted three times to protect the right of doctors to kill babies who came out of an abortion still alive.
Gregory did not push back on this claim even though it has been widely debunked. The Associated Press noted in a fact check of a previous attempt by Gingrich to push this claim that Illinois law already required that doctors to provide medical attention if a live birth resulted from a botched abortion on a viable fetus:
As an Illinois state senator, Obama voted against legislation promoted by anti-abortion activists that would have conferred protection to fetuses showing any signs of life after an abortion, even if doctors did not believe the fetus was viable. Obama pointed to an existing Illinois law requiring doctors to protect fetuses they believed were likely to survive after an abortion, and said he was concerned the proposed new law was so broad it could interfere with routine abortions.
NBC's David Gregory muddied the waters on the Medicare debate, saying that President Obama "claims that he would extend the solvency of Medicare eight years until 2024." However, this is not just a claim put forth by the Obama campaign; the Medicare Board of Trustees has estimated that Medicare will remain solvent until 2024 thanks to the health care law.
CNN and NBC Sunday shows allowed Mitt Romney campaign surrogates to claim that the American people aren't interested in seeing more of Romney's tax returns, even as polling shows most Americans think Romney should release more of his returns.
In the wake of last week's tragic mass shooting in Aurora, CO, some in the media are distorting public opinion and election results to predict that the events will not have an impact on the debate over gun violence prevention. In fact, polls indicate public support for a broad range of stronger gun restrictions, including the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban, which may have prevented the legal purchase of one of the alleged shooter's guns.
The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza kicked off the debate with a piece published the morning after the shooting headlined "Why the Aurora shootings won't likely change the gun control debate":
If history is any guide, however, the Aurora shootings will do little to change public sentiment regarding gun control, which has been moving away from putting more laws on the books for some time.
In 1990, almost eight in ten Americans said that the "laws covering the sales of firearms" should be made "more strict" while just 10 percent said they should be made "less strict" or "kept as they are now". By 2010, those numbers had drastically shifted with 54 percent preferring less strict or no change in guns laws and 44 percent believing gun laws should be made more strict.
By Sunday the claim that Americans don't support tougher gun laws was a regular feature on the morning political talk shows. But if Congress is not moved by this tragedy to pass new gun violence prevention laws, it won't be because the American people oppose such measures.
In fact, other polls indicate that contrary to the result of the Gallup poll Cillizza cited, Americans support the passage of an array of new, stronger firearm sale laws.
Note that this appetite among the public for stronger gun laws includes the support of more than three in five for reinstating the nationwide ban on assault weapons, which expired in 2004. One of the weapons used by the alleged shooter was an AR-15-style semi-automatic rifle, which reportedly may have been banned under that law. Members of the House and Senate have called for bringing back the ban in response to the shooting. They enjoy the support of 62 percent of Americans, including 61 percent of Independents and 49 percent of Republicans, according to a June 2011 Time magazine poll.
From the May 20 edition of NBC's Meet The Press:
Loading the player reg...
As host of NBC's Meet the Press, David Gregory talks with the most influential people in politics and the media. It was on Meet the Press, for instance, that Vice President Joe Biden made news with his statement supporting gay marriage.
His guests expect a fair hearing. But today, Gregory is scheduled to address the National Federation of Independent Business' Small Business Summit.
As Think Progress notes, the NFIB is not merely an industry group -- it's an organization with a clear record of partisan activism. In the 2010 election cycle, NFIB's political action committee spent more than a million dollars to support Republican candidates, and none on Democrats.
The NFIB is also the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit against the Affordable Care Act.
Gregory's willingness to associate himself with a group like this raises questions about his allegiances.
The NFIB states that it "pushes back against [the] Big Labor agenda." The next time a union leader appears on Meet the Press, will he be getting a fair shake?
The appearance of a conflict of interest should be a concern for both Gregory and NBC.
Interviewing Vice President Joe Biden on Sunday, Meet the Press host David Gregory adopted last week's right-wing spin when he asked if Obama's trip to Afghanistan to sign a security agreement with Afghan President Hamid Karzia and to address U.S. troops on the anniversary of the killing of Osama bin Laden represented a failure for the president.
Gregory even incorporated the New York Post's page-one attack on Obama:
GREGORY: The president went to Afghanistan on the anniversary of the operation to kill Osama bin Laden with a message to America that this war is coming to an end. Headlines around the world, including this in The New York Post, which sort of was a little bit more colorful. "Ka-Bull! Now Obama spikes bin Laden football in Afghanistan," an allusion to the fact that he would not do that, that there would not be the politicization of killing bin Laden. Was all of this together in effect his "Mission Accomplished" moment?
So David Gregory asked if Obama traveling to Afghanistan to sign a long-term pact on the anniversary of a signature foreign policy and national security success, the killing of bin Laden, was equivalent to Bush's famously premature celebration of what many consider to be his biggest foreign policy and national security failure, the war in Iraq?
Bush's "Mission Accomplished" fiasco became universal shorthand (as well as a punch line) for his administration's botched handling of the war. How is that even remotely similar to the widely heralded raid to kill bin Laden?
And note to Gregory: The fact that the hyper-partisan and bitter New York Post whined (and whined and whined) about Obama marking bin Laden's death and traveling to Afghanistan wasn't surprising. But it's also not news. (The Post hates everything Obama does.) Why Gregory chose to try to legitimize the tabloid'sabsurd, knee-jerk Obama critique, and then try to compare a clear Obama success to an equally clear Bush failure, remains puzzling.
As Democrats push for the Paycheck Fairness Act to address wage inequality between men and women, conservative media figures have claimed that there is no real wage inequality because men work more hours than women and thus earn more. But studies have shown that an earnings discrepancy between men and women persists, even when accounting for a variety of factors, including hours worked.
On Friday, Baltimore Sun media critic David Zurawik defended CNN's John King for raising the issue of Newt Gingrich's marital history at the start of the Republican presidential debate the night before. King's question had prompted a stern lecture from Gingrich on media propriety, which was earnestly appreciated by the debate audience and replayed extensively by the press as election day in South Carolina loomed. Zurawik, having seen this same routine played out several times in the past, all but pleaded with the media stop letting Gingrich "bully" them:
Does the ability of someone as corrupted as Gingrich to bully the press and find support within the media ultimately reveal how confused and insecure the press has become about its standards? How is it that so few in the press seem to understand our higher purpose in a democracy -- the one intended by the founders to warrant those First Amendment guarantees?
Zurawik's message was simple: You know it's coming, be prepared, don't be cowed. It doesn't appear to have sunk in.
Gingrich took a post-South Carolina victory lap this morning and appeared with NBC's David Gregory on Meet the Press. Gregory asked Gingrich about his time as a "consultant, or, depending on your point of view, a lobbyist" for Freddie Mac. Newt responded by lecturing Gregory, at the end of which Gregory let the issue go:
The transcript, for those who can't see the video:
GREGORY: You are running against the establishment, you're trying to run as an outsider. You talk about housing in Florida. You were a consultant, or, depending on your point of view, a lobbyist for one of the mortgage giants. I'm wondering how you think you win that inside-outside game, given your history.
GINGRICH: David, wait a second, David. David, you know better than that. I was not a lobbyist, I was never a lobbyist, I never did any lobbying. Don't try to mix these things up. The fact is I was an adviser strategically and if you look at the only thing ever published by Freddie Mac, I said you need more regulations. If you look at the only article ever written about my talking to the Congress, it was in the New York Times in July of 2008, and I said do not give them any money.
Now I opposed giving money to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I think they should both be broken up into four or five much smaller companies and I've long felt that. And so I think that to jump from one to the other is simply wrong. In Florida, my case is going to be very simple. You have a clear establishment candidate in Mitt Romney. Look where his money comes from, look at his background, look what he did in Massachusetts. And you have somebody whose entire career has been a Reagan populist conservative going all the way back to the 1970s.
I think that's a pretty clear contrast, and I think Floridians would like somebody who speaks for them to Washington, not somebody who speaks to the establishment to them.
The holes in Gingrich's "I was not a lobbyist" argument have been demonstrated several times over. Politifact gave the claim a "Half-True" rating, noting that it's depressingly easy and common for "consultants" who provide "strategic advice" (which is how Gingrich's campaign explained his relationship with Freddie Mac) to essentially function as lobbyists without having to register as such. The Washington Post called Gingrich's denials of being a lobbyist "clearly misleading," laying out all the known details of Gingrich's dealings with the mortgage giant.
There was plenty of easily obtained information Gregory could have used to push back on Gingrich's argument. But instead he moved on after Gingrich scolded him to not "mix these things up." And that's part of the reason why Gingrich keeps on scolding the press. It works.
From the November 4 broadcast of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
Loading the player reg...
From the September 25 edition of NBC's Meet The Press:
Loading the player reg...
From the August 13 edition of MSNBC's The Daily Rundown:
Loading the player reg...