Near the end of the 3:00PM EST hour on MSNBC on Monday, anchor Norah O’Donnell attacked former Vice President Dick Cheney for arguing that the Bush administration should not be blamed for the economic crisis, exclaiming: "Can't blame the Bush administration? Well, let me show you this. The unemployment rate during the Bush administration rose from 4.2% to 7.6%. Poverty jumped from 32.9 million individuals to 37.3 million. The number of uninsured jumped from 41.2 million to 45.7 million, and the budget -- the inherited budget surplus of $120 billion and now it's a $1.3 trillion deficit." O’Donnell failed to note that the unemployment rate only jumped in the final few months of the administration, after the economic crisis hit.
After O’Donnell’s rant, which sounded like a list of Democratic talking points, she turned to Republican strategist Phil Musser and asked: "Phil, does the Vice President have any credibility left when he says don't blame the Bush administration, with numbers like that?" Musser responded: "Look, I think that the Vice President is giving his view point on the last eight years and clearly, the figures that you point out are the figures that you point out, not all of those should be laid at the Bush administration's feet." Musser went on to link O'Donnell's comments with the strategy of the Obama White House: "...clearly your seeing out of the White House now, the strategy of linkage of yesterday...If that's where they're going with this, I think it's totally counter-productive and not useful."
Earlier, immediately following MSNBC’s coverage of Monday’s White House press briefing, O’Donnell remarked on Press Secretary Robert Gibbs bashing Cheney: "Robert Gibbs shot back, calling him, ‘I guess,’ he said ‘I guess Rush Limbaugh was busy, so they trotted out someone who's now the second most popular man in the Republican Party.’" O’Donnell then turned to White House correspondent Chuck Todd, who added: "And by the way, I just want to -- I'm not trying to correct you Norah, he didn't even refer to the Republicans as the Republican Party. He called it the Republican cabal. So it was more of a shot, by the way, that he was trying to take both at Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh."
Here is the full transcript of the segment:
3:43PM TEASE:
NORAH O'DONNELL: Also, of course, Robert Gibbs going after the former Vice President Dick Cheney in this interview. As you know, Cheney gave -- in this press briefing -- Cheney gave an interview over the weekend in which he said that this admin -- that the Bush administration should not be blamed. And Robert Gibbs shot back, calling him, 'I guess,' he said 'I guess Rush Limbaugh was busy, so they trotted out someone who's now the second most popular man in the Republican Party.' Chuck Todd, of course, is our chief White House correspondent and joins us now. Chuck, a lot of interesting questions today, I think, for this administration. How exactly are they going to block these bonuses? What tools do they have in order to do that? Did we get a clear answer?
CHUCK TODD: We did not, they have none. And by the way, I just want to -- I'm not trying to correct you Norah, he didn't even refer to the Republicans as the Republican Party. He called it the Republican cabal. So it was more of a shot, by the way, that he was trying to take both at Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh.
3:52PM SEGMENT:
NORAH O'DONNELL: The other big headline today involves the former Vice President Dick Cheney, who gave an interview yesterday saying, 'don't blame the Bush administration for our troubles.' Take a listen.
DICK CHENEY: There's no question about what the economic circumstances that he inherited are difficult ones. You know, we said that before we left. I don't think you can blame the Bush administration for the creation of those circumstances.
O'DONNELL: Can't blame the Bush administration? Well, let me show you this. The unemployment rate during the Bush administration rose from 4.2% to 7.6%. Poverty jumped from 32.9 million individuals to 37.3 million. The number of uninsured jumped from 41.2 million to 45.7 million, and the budget -- the inherited budget surplus of $120 billion and now it's a $1.3 trillion deficit. Phil, does the Vice President have any credibility left when he says don't blame the Bush administration, with numbers like that?
PHIL MUSSER: Look, I think that the Vice President is giving his view point on the last eight years and clearly, the figures that you point out are the figures that you point out, not all of those should be laid at the Bush administration's feet. They did do some pro-growth tax cut policy, they did make some important changes to domestic policy, but nonetheless, I think that the -- I think that the discussion is better served by where we're going, as opposed to where we've been. And you know, clearly your seeing out of the White House now, the strategy of linkage of yesterday. Robert Gibbs at that podium just got up their and kind of denounced the Vice President in the strongest terms. If that's where they're going with this, I think it's totally counter-productive and not useful.
—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
After 55 straight months of
March 17, 2009 - 11:19 ET by AcrosAfter 55 straight months of job creation and economic growth the Democratic Party was voted into Congress as the party in power and than this economic crisis hits us 11 months later.. Now who to blame for this mess!!!!
Oh, well, if Norah O'Donnel
March 17, 2009 - 11:26 ET by motherbeltOh, well, if Norah O'Donnel says so, it must be true!
Where was the former VP to refute her?
Oh, nevermind.
But Rush Limbaugh needs to be "balanced."
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
Did Bush ever blame the 9/11
March 17, 2009 - 11:45 ET by MrSnugglesDid Bush ever blame the 9/11 attacks on Clinton? The immaturity and child-like behavior by the left is sickening.
→ NO
March 17, 2009 - 11:51 ET by Cool ArrowI don't remember once hearing President Bush saying "I inherited this crisis"
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
I don't remember once
March 17, 2009 - 11:59 ET by Dan The Man 2I don't remember once hearing President Bush saying "I inherited this crisis"
And that is all we hear from the Teleproper in chief.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
→ Hedging his bets
March 17, 2009 - 12:04 ET by Cool ArrowObama is telegraphing his inability to steer us out of this economic turmoil.
Even if he wanted the economy to recover, he has no clue how to stimulate it.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
he has no clue how to
March 17, 2009 - 12:15 ET by Dan The Man 2he has no clue how to stimulate it.
Snarky comment I bet Michelle says the same thing.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
It would be interesting to
March 17, 2009 - 11:54 ET by IgnatzJFahrquarIt would be interesting to see what the employment and growth figures were before the Libs took over Congress.
As much as they'll try to keep pulling Bush into the mix, it's getting real old, really fast.
With the boneheaded moves the Libs are making, like Sen. Dudd's bonus protection, theyll be burying themselves, right quick.
"All generalizations are false, including this one.” Mark Twain
I bet the closest Norah
March 17, 2009 - 11:58 ET by R D HelmI bet the closest Norah O’Donnell ever got to an economics classroom was when she passed by the business building after leaving her basket-weaving class on her way to her women's studies class.
I don't suppose she could trouble herself to point out exactly what it was that Bush did to cause something that has been in the works for over thirty years.
-Dave
This coup has gone on long enough. The time to put it down is NOW.
Vile
March 17, 2009 - 12:07 ET by cvgbuckeyeAll through the last 8 years plus, President Bush has remained a Christian Gentleman in the face of the dirtiest and most vile attacks from the left and the MSM (one and the same). He has ALWAYS remained above the fray, refusing to get down in the gutter with these vile people.
On the contrary, the Chairman Obama people are the most thin skinned cry babies that have ever held office. One of the reasons is that they feel immune to criticism because the Chairman is a minority. The MSM shares their opinion.
The White House press secretary is a cheap joke.
There is nothing cheap about
March 17, 2009 - 12:12 ET by AgnosticThere is nothing cheap about this administration, joke or otherwise.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
Norah...three letters....
March 17, 2009 - 12:19 ET by sawing battaC.R.A
All I know is that the
March 17, 2009 - 12:29 ET by Indiana JoeAll I know is that the market is down by a large percentage since January 21st. I'm sure someone has the exact numbers, but it seemed like every time Obama announced a new aspect of his economic plan, the market lost 200-300 points. Or more.
That's business' take on what the future holds, folks.
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..." - The Who
I Watched the Cheney Interview on CNN
March 17, 2009 - 12:31 ET by deerjerkydaveI watched the Cheney interview on CNN. Cheney did an excellent job. He has so much more "gravitas" than Joe Biden or Obama combined.
Cheney correctly and refreshingly pointed out how the Bush administration tried to reform Fanny and Freddie but were blocked by the Democrats led by Barney Frank.
Of course the propagandist media sweeps this under the rug and has the gall to turn to Barney Frank for the solution to the economic difficulties that we are now in.
barney boy and chris dodd
March 17, 2009 - 14:00 ET by JIMMY1660need to be taken in front of a Senate hearing and asked "what in the hell were you doing to subverting the banking laws, and are you at fault with this whole mess"
and if not answered-WATER BOARDING is in order.
BHO- ill equipped to lead America
for shame!
March 17, 2009 - 12:38 ET by RagamuffinO’Donnell failed to note that the unemployment rate only jumped in the
final few months of the administration, after the economic crisis hit.
Which still proves it's his fault.
Your point?
~My point
March 17, 2009 - 12:52 ET by choselife3xClearly, Democrats had no part in this mess. Uh huh. Why didn't the Republicans see this coming?
Hope and Change= Despair and Socialism
C3X, Nice links, however raggs is on dial-up.
March 17, 2009 - 13:59 ET by upcountrywaterP.R.I.N.T. Money 30 sec YT
Not so fast
March 17, 2009 - 15:14 ET by RagamuffinI'd ask why the Republicans did so much to cause it.
→ And I'd answer
March 17, 2009 - 15:23 ET by Cool ArrowWe may never know how many Liberal projects during the Bush era were resultant of a backroom deal for the Iraq War vote.
Look at it this way. Even Murtha and Kerry and Clinton voted for it.
That's the reason for the drunken sailor liberty.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
~Seriously?
March 17, 2009 - 18:10 ET by choselife3xThat article says that Republicans fought regulation, but doesn't back it up. My videos show Democrats ON TAPE fighting regulation when the Republicans recommended it!
You have nothing! What do you have to say about the evidence in the videos?
Hope and Change=
Despair and Socialism
<i>That article says that
March 18, 2009 - 08:21 ET by RagamuffinThat article says that Republicans fought regulation, but doesn't back it up.
What's not backed up is this assertion. Every accusation notes the exact legislation they supported which supported deregulation or fought against regulation. It's chock full of links to news articles going into even more deatil.
~Did you WATCH the video?
March 18, 2009 - 08:48 ET by choselife3xThe one where Barney Frank said Fannie and Freddie were sound and he didn't see a crisis? Where the White House called for more regulation in APRIL 2001 and again in 2003? How about McCain making a speech calling for GSE reform in 2006?
All you have is articles by liberal rags. I've got Democrats ON TAPE blocking regulation of Fannie and Freddie.
Hope and Change= Despair and Socialism
Check Mate
March 18, 2009 - 12:34 ET by deerjerkydaveCheck and mate!
The housing crisis is the driving force behind the slumping economy. The Community Reinvestment Act which was created by Jimmy Carter and the Dems in the 1970s and later injected with steroids by Clinton put pressure on banks to lend money to low income people with promises that the GOVERNMENT would back up lenders on the risk. The massive new supply of home owners caused the demand for homes and loans to go way up. The increased demand caused the price on homes to go up. This new artifical demand created the housing bubble. Bush and the Republicans tried to put the breaks on this but were blocked by the Democrats. But like all ponzi schemes, reality caught up. Those with low income frequently made unwise loan terms or borrowed way more than they could ever afford. In short order they were in over their heads and the bubble burst.
This is basic supply and demand economics.
its a little more than that
March 18, 2009 - 13:24 ET by katainkentbut don't look to the lib camp to distribute blame where its due. Bush (too much too early / too little too late) and Alan (doh! I shouldna dun that) Greenspan should own their parts BUT the fact that Chris (what sweetheart mortgage deal?) Dodd's name isn't even scented in the mention of Countrywide pretty much sealed it for me. Of course Barney "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' Frank is missing too.
PT had a link that had a really basic set of 4 graphs... ha I found it. Don't ride the housing market roller coaster (YT clip) if you get motion sickness easily.
yeah
March 17, 2009 - 18:34 ET by katainkentlet's untangle that a little
<eol>
Did Bush cause the financial crisis?
March 18, 2009 - 12:40 ET by mastersofdeceit"It is impossible to blame it all on one man."
"Which still proves it's
March 17, 2009 - 16:29 ET by ckc1227"Which still proves it's his fault.
Your point? "
Ahh, the logic of fools. Let's hope Obama's free health care gets you the meds you need.
Wrong, O'Donnell is guilty
March 18, 2009 - 12:16 ET by dscottWrong, O'Donnell is guilty of an error of omission. Pelosi and Reid took control of Congress in January 2007, the very month unemployment began to rise, an undeniable FACT. Their campaign promise: Lower the price of gasoline, A FACT. They reneged on their promise and drove the price of gas to $4/gallon via insisting on the maintaining the drilling ban and pushing their ethanol fantasy, A FACT. The economy tanked and people at the bottom of the economic ladder could not longer pay their mortgages, A CONCLUSION. IMO, Libs are great at revisionism when they refuse to take responsibility of their policy failures. Just like the same error of omission regarding Bush repeatedly tried to reform Fannie and Freddie starting in 2001 while the Dems screamed there was nothing wrong, A FACT. The same Dems who have continually said there is nothing wrong with Social Security, A FACT. Only idiots and evil people with malicious intent ignore the FACTS to a looming disaster.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
dscott
March 18, 2009 - 12:29 ET by AgnosticDon't forget that the first goal they accomplished was the raising the minimum wage rate which I'm sure did nothing to hurt those low income home owners (because Barney got them a house) who were barely hanging on.
A person may be won over with logic and reason but the masses must be bought with spectacle and platitudes. - 2008 Elections
Boy, do I miss the adults in
March 17, 2009 - 12:39 ET by EugeniaBoy, do I miss the adults in the White House. Now we have spanky and his gang. I hope we only have to endure four years of this nightmare.
they sure did protect us!
March 18, 2009 - 08:19 ET by RagamuffinI bet if Democrats had been in office on September 11th they'd have failed to stop the terrorists from attacking the World Trade Center.
OH WAIT.
fault
March 17, 2009 - 12:43 ET by Mulligan22So since it's gone even higher since Barry O hit town, that means it's his fault. Since thats how this game is played.
I say this alot but what
March 17, 2009 - 13:02 ET by Dave DI say this alot but what surplus? The "surplus" was obtained through shady accounting that counted social security as income. (Came from Reagan and O'Neil for what it's worth.) Also the tech bubble had burst in 2000 and by the time Bush got the economy it was about a month away from being in a recession. (Which given inertia in the economy means it had been heading that way since mid 2000.) Only in fantasy land would what Clinton handed off to Bush be considered Bush's fault while a similar situation at the end of his term would also be considered Bush's fault.
Oh, come on Norah - Bush inherited a mess, as well.
March 17, 2009 - 13:50 ET by Gary HallI might add, that my personal sense was that President-elect Bush, and then President Bush, over those next many months, while openly talking about the economic mess we faced - was not spending a lot of effort blaming the Clinton years for the mess he inherited; rather, he was about getting down to how to stave off a recession and to get the economy back on track.
As Pres. Bush was taking office:
And to summarize the Clinton economy, I always go with the economic idol of the liberal left MSM, Dean Baker of CEPR, who said in March, 2001 looking back at the disaster Bush inherited:
Here's the question - did Norah O’Donnell or any other member of the MSM ever directly ask a question of Bill Clinton about the economic pain he left behind - to Pres. Bush?
(;~/ gary
Don't you love how they
March 17, 2009 - 16:49 ET by ckc1227Don't you love how they cling to that $120 billion "surplus" like it's an endless amount of money, lol? AIG alone has eaten up that "surplus", and then some. And did she miss that minor inconvenience known as 9/11? Surely that cost a million or so, don't you think?
If Norah and her band of fools want to blame this on Bush, fine...but at least back up your allegation. Otherwise, she's just another lying, BDS-suffering liberal with nothing better to do...which we all know is what's really going on here.
By the way, Norah, I thought there were 47 million uninsured..or is it 48 million...or is it 58 million? Baaah, who cares....all that matters is that we use a big number to keep the lie alive...right, Norah? Bogus propaganda is cool like that.
"Libs never let you down. You don't have to talk to one very long before the stupid comes out."
ckc1227 -- how important the big number is..
March 17, 2009 - 17:59 ET by Gary Hallckc 1227. I had a conversation with a certain US Senator, a Democrat, back in 2001 - just a week or so prior to 9/11. Let me assure you, the Democrats have a terminal interest in the number of uninsured in the US. The MSM shares that view. The larger the number - the more fear they can sustain - the more fear - the easier it becomes to sell the ultimate prize. There is much resistance to support measures which seek to decrease the number of uninsured thru sensible legislation.
As you surely know, the number of uninsured includes some 10-13 million illegal’s.
It is interesting to note that the number of uninsured was just shy of 45 million back in 1997, or so. The late frenzy of hiring during the dot.com bubble created a quick - and very temporary downturn in the number of uninsured. When you consider that the number of illegal’s has soared during these past 10 years, or so, as it had been doing before, it's rather amazing to consider (what the MSM will not consider) that we're only at about 46 or 47 million now - or perhaps 33 - 37 million (10-13 million illegal’s). Of course many of the counted uninsured, are only temporarily without insurance (between jobs, etc.), perhaps 13-15 million (? - off the top of my head) -- and quick fixes could be had for this issue, not involving socialized medicine. Ah, back to where we started in this conversation. Right?
And imagine how the collapse of the Clinton bubble of temporary greed and fraud affected the number. This graphic from IBD - clearly indicates the scope of what President Bush inherited from the Clinton regime:
(;~> gary