Update | 10 AM: McCain Campaign Comments to NB on Mitchell Remarks
McCain campaign deputy chairman Frank Donatelli has commented to NB on Mitchell's remarks. See report at foot.
------
IMing with a friend in England this morning, Morning Joe on in the background, I was vaguely aware that an Obama staffer was on, touting her candidate's economic plan. Signing off my chat, I focused on the tube, only to realize that the Obama staffer was in fact . . . Andrea Mitchell.
Mitchell cast the battle of the candidates' tax plans as McCain's "old-fashioned" supply-side economics versus Obama's "mainstream, centrist" plans that "do help people" while responsibly "paying for everything."
View video here.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Talk about just how different these two candidates's vision is for America's economic future.
ANDREA MITCHELL: They couldn't be more different. It is a classic contest between old-fashioned, Republican, supply-side economics—John McCain—and Barack Obama's melding of Clinton sort of growth economics, and also mainstream, centrist, Bob Rubin-style of economics. It's really interesting to see who he has around him. He has people who came out of the Hamilton Project, which is at Brookings--you can't get more Washingtonian than that. It is the Bob Rubin group.
SCARBOROUGH: Andrea, if you could, break that down for us, because we all know supply-siders believe: cut taxes, it grows the economy, and helps you get rid of the chickenweed in your backyard. Cutting taxes cures all ills. What is this Bob Rubin style of govern--this centrist style of economics? What is it in terms of policy?
MITCHELL: Well, what it means is helping people, doing things on health care. Government programs that do help people on health and education, but paying for everything. So it is the kind of responsible economics, some would say, that led to a lot of growth in the 90s because people on Wall Street were reassured you wouldn't be growing the deficit. So it's not going crazy on social programs without paying as you go, and it's also doing something to make the tax code fairer.
Mitchell did go on to observe that "McCain would say" taxes on capital gains and the wealthy hit the most productive segments of society. She added that both sides can point to economic eras that supported their arguments. Mitchell and Joe also agreed that a windfall profits tax on oil companies would do nothing to reduce gasoline prices. The "some would say" was also a nice touch.
But her touting of Obama's proposals was not framed as "Obama would say," as she did of McCain's critique. Mitchell left little doubt as to whose plans she prefers.
Update | 10 AM: McCain Campaign Comments to NB on Mitchell Remarks
Shortly after I posted this item, I had the chance to participate in a bloggers conference call with Frank Donatelli, deputy chairman of the McCain campaign. I took the opportunity to invite him to comment on Mitchell's remarks. Excerpts below.
FRANK DONATELLI: How you label these things, these economic plans, I think is something of a game. Everybody is looking for that three-word description that will get the media to write about it. I would simply prefer to say that McCain's is a time-honored, market-oriented approach which trusts people to do the right thing for themselves and gives them the resources to provide for them and their families, versus, if you want to talk about "old-fashioned," a pretty much soak-the-rich, New Deal, big government scheme that Senator Obama has put forward.
If you get by the rhetoric, basically what he [Obama] says is: "we--meaning I, Barack Obama—and my liberal friends, are going to give you these things. We're going to give you good schools, we're going to give you better teachers, we're going to give you retirement security, we're going to give you more health care, etc., etc., etc. I don't really know if that's economics, other than just a lot of inflated promises that amount to hundreds of billions of dollars a year, and he's pretty thin on how he's going to pay for all that, even though he promises a lot of new tax increases.
Note: After listening to my reading of Andrea's remarks, Donatelli's initial reaction was "I've got to really get with Andrea and explain to her the basics of economics." Now that would make for some great TV. Hopefully we'll have the chance to see it.
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
So cutting taxes is
June 11, 2008 - 08:50 ET by motherbeltSo cutting taxes is irresponsible. Responsible economics is raising taxes so the government can provide "help" with health care, education etc? And that's a "centrist" position??????
I think it's time for Andrea to follow the example of the other lady reporter (forget her name) and resign her position and go to work for the Obama campaign.
Now you're getting it,
June 11, 2008 - 10:50 ET by ckc1227Now you're getting it, Motherbelt. Stealing even more money from hard working people to give away to others is "responsible economics".
it's a "centrist left wing
June 11, 2008 - 12:47 ET by TruthMongerit's a "centrist left wing liberal" position
Andrea failed to include Carter in her hyphenated Obama hot dish there
let's keep pinning the spot-on Carter label on Obama - front and center where it belongs...
Comparing Obama to Clinton on Economic issues is a joke
June 11, 2008 - 08:49 ET by Dee BunkClinton was pretty Conservative on Economic issues (for a Dem) Obama is the opposite. Clinton was for free trade and NAFTA, Obama is against them. Clinton raised taxes, but did it in a time of huge economic growth (the only time that it's not completely idiotic to do it). Obama wants to raise them with a slow growing economy (that he claims to be near a depression).
Clinton was a very Conservative Democrat - Obama is not Clinton. Obama is Carter. McCain is Clinton.
I agree, Dee. Growth was so
June 11, 2008 - 08:55 ET by motherbeltI agree, Dee. Growth was so strong in the 90's (even tho some of it was phantom) that even tax hikes couldn't kill it. Thus some Democrats assumed that since A and B occurred at the same time, A caused B. And now they pitch the idea that raising taxes causes growth.
It's possible that Obama is the same kind of Sleazy liar
June 11, 2008 - 09:08 ET by Dee Bunkthat Clinton was. During his first run Clinton talked against free trade and then signed NAFTA and the second time, he gave some "nuanced" song and dance to the Union workers who were against it and then did nothing to stop or limit NAFTA in his second term.
I don't think Obama is a sleazy as Clinton. He could be, it's possible, but I think his ideology is more like Carter.
Clinton had big government dreams, but no leadership skills
June 11, 2008 - 09:16 ET by GalvanicI wouldn't call Clinton a conservative Democrat. He certainly had some grandiose Big Government dreams for solving American domestic problems.
What made him different from previous Democratic Presidents was his deliberate attempts to court big business with pro-business policy, knowing that economic growth (fueled by cheap oil) would generate more government revenue, which would pay for things like universal health care without negatively impacting the country's life style. A lot of that revenue would also come from the so-called 'peace dividend' -- the savings from downsizing of the post-Cold War Defense Department
His failure was rooted in his lack of leadership skills necessary to pull disparate interests together into one solid effort, and the inability to curb defense spending. Despite a reduction in forces, the defense budget did not shrink proportionately.
So, overall, despite his claims to the contrary, Clinton was at best, a mediocre President.
Agreed
June 11, 2008 - 10:25 ET by KC MulvilleTaxes make sense to cut a deficit, so long as you're not simultaneously raising spending at the same time. But we've had an ongoing explosion in spending, and Obama's programs don't promise any cuts soon. We would simply be taking money from the private sector, away from where it can spur growth, and we're simply using it to finance Obama campaign promises.
The second question is whether Obama understands the economics of it himself. But in every speech, he displays a typical liberal attitude. Obama's economics gives us a wide-ranging wish list of what to do with all the revenue, but his plan never explains where all that revenue is supposed to come from. He clearly doesn't grasp that if you take all the profit from efficient producers and give it to inefficient producers, the profit will dry up and everyone loses.
Have you heard any of Obama's speeches? His entire method is to tax "those who can afford it," meaning the people who are currently making a profit. He then wants to "invest" those taxes, but guess where he's investing them? He puts the money where it gets lost in the bureaucracy. He wants to create a massive healthcare bureaucracy, which hides the real costs within taxes. He wants to rebuild New Orleans ... you know, the city beneath a lake? And he wants to "invest" in the biggest and most useless bureaucracy of all - the public school system. (Guess what's completely missing? Any military improvements on the menu? None.)
Oh yeah - I've heard Obama's speeches KC
June 11, 2008 - 11:38 ET by Dee BunkAnd I agree with you 100%. Great post.
Obama is no Clinton (Bill) by a long shot. He's Carter all the way.
Clinton was sneaky and Dishonest but he was actually pretty conservative when it came down to it. I think his whole Hillary Care thing was a way to keep her quite and occupied. I don't think he would have ever let it pass. He didn't. He never really gave any meaningful support to it.
Clinton was a sleaze ball but was actually pretty conservative on economic issues. He just fooled is followers. He was liberal on National defense (but not nearly as liberal as Obama). McCain is the opposite. Liberal on Economic issues, Conservative on National Defense.
Obama is liberal on both economic and National defense unless he's just tricking his followers like Clinton did. It's hard to say for sure, but I doubt it because Obama's votes have been consistently extremely liberal. It doesn't matter if he did switch though because most Dems just need a "D" to be happy with a person so he can go back on anything he says and they'll still love him.
I didn't agree with much of what Bush ran on Both times, (he was a very liberal Republican) but I admired his honesty in trying hard to do everything he said he would. He didn't say one thing to get elected and then change course. The only thing he changed course on was Nation building in his first term and there was a catastrophic event (not political convenience) that changed his mind. His immigration and prescription drug plans were unpopular with conservatives but he still fought hard for them (only to have the obstructionists be liberals who normally would have supported them).
When Clinton lended his support to conservative plans (like welfare reform and NAFTA) conservatives didn't obstruct worrying that he would get the credit. They passed their bills while they could. The Dems are completely opposite. They won't do what they believe to be the best for the country if they think there is any chance of a conservative getting credit. Dems are much more political and partisan and care about the power much more than the principals.
Hi Dee, "Dems are much more
June 11, 2008 - 12:02 ET by MassConservHi Dee,
"Dems are much more political and partisan and care about the power much more..." [to this I'll add], in general.
There's a reason for this. The Dems want to take credit for everything so they can use it to further their polical careers. In contrast, by and large, the Repubs will just go back to doing what they're better at, making money in the private sector when they're through with politics.
The Dems don't have anything else to fall back on so they claw for any advantage they can.
I agree Massconserv
June 11, 2008 - 13:18 ET by Dee BunkIt's all about power and career for liberals. It used to be better but was always more important for Dems as a career. Gephardt wasn't the type of far leftist that Pelosi is and he didn't play hardball the way she does. He was still operating with a pre-campaign finance mentality that gave more independence to their party. Pelosi has turned the congress into a hard left arm that will do what ever it's instructed to by Soros et al.
The Senate was always more Partisan and controlled but Campaign finance has also turned them harder left and decent is not tolerated. It's unbelievable how they forced Lieberman out. I don't like his political views but am amazed how he can still vote with them despite how poorly he was treated for having a different opinion on ONE issue. He does have character. I still think he's wrong on most things, but he cares more about his issues than the politics.
Many Republicans are still like Leiberman. They care more about what they believe to be right than towing a political line. Of course we have lots of Bad Apple Republicans who follow and change with the tide for convenience, but we also have many more truly independent people. Unfortunately it's the very reason we are losing. It's sad, but the only way Republicans are ever going to get control back is to demand loyalty like Pelosi does and kick dissenters out. It's really sad.
In contrast, by and large,
June 11, 2008 - 15:25 ET by motherbeltIn contrast, by and large, the Repubs will just go back to doing what
they're better at, making money in the private sector when they're
through with politics.
Which is why every now and then the numbers change so drastically in the Dems' favor. Republicans will retire from politics at some point; Democrats are in it for life.
Guess what's completely
June 11, 2008 - 15:21 ET by motherbeltGuess what's completely missing? Any military improvements on the menu? None.
No improvements indeed, just cuts and more cuts. Check out this video of a speech to Caucus4Priorities, a liberal pacifist organization, to hear his plans. (He starts off with "Thanks so much to the Caucus4Priorities for the great work you've been doing.")
And American Thinker today has more on his plans.
The 90's
June 11, 2008 - 09:12 ET by Mulligan22In the 90's Clinton cut the Army by a couple of divisions and a large amount of ships from the Navy. This was called the peace dividend from Reagan winning the cold war. Clinton cut the intelligence budget as well. This turned out to haunt us as terrorists flourished while we were not looking. But it did save money, at a huge cost in lives as it turns out. The next three items Mr. Clinton had nothing to do with but rode the wave and took credit. We had the cell phone and internet boom. A lot of money from venture capitalists came pouring into new companies that as it turned out made no money. And in the end went bust. And the money dried up. Then there was the billions of dollars pumped into the ecomony for Y2K prep. Which ended as well. By 2000 the boom was over, check a chart of the NASDAQ. It had lost over 50% of it's value before Clinton left office. How the Dems can now claim to be able to recreate to 90's and doing it by jacking up taxes is beyond me. That decade was a unique time in history and won't happen again anytime soon.
Exactly. Clinton had
June 11, 2008 - 09:34 ET by bassndudeExactly. Clinton had nothing to do with the tech bubble. It was day traders, with their new computer, that invested heavly in every little internet start up outfit that came along. What was it, Earthnet? or whatever? IPO at 15 bucks and after it was on the market, jumped to over 100 bucks by the end of the day. Then after two days, droped to 8. Clinton had nothing to do with that, it was all a fake.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Economics
June 11, 2008 - 09:27 ET by nkviking75Obviously Alan Greenspan never talks to his wife about economics.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Andrea
June 11, 2008 - 15:18 ET by okiehawk44Andrea Mitchell just doesn't want to know anything that contradicts her preconceptions.
Your headstone will read "Here lies Andrea Mitchell -- She knows it was all Bush's fault, everything, forever and ever and ever and ever and ever..."
Obama as a candidate
June 11, 2008 - 09:36 ET by NH DadRead this somewhere this am and thought it was spot on the money...
It’s hiring day at the big city firm of Fenster, Brown, Bumstead & Tate Here comes a candidate…
"Afternoon," mumbles Fenster, "Take a seat and introduce yourself."
"Obama, Barack Obama," the young candidate replies confidently.
Searching through the stack of files on the table in front of him, Bumstead looks up, "I don’t seem to have your resume in front of me, Mr. Barack."
"Uh, it’s Mr. Obama… Barack is the first name, Obama the second… and I don’t have a resume."
"No resume?" asks Tate. "You do realize this is a job interview… resumes are somewhat traditional when applying for a job."
"Frankly," replies Obama, "I think resumes represent the old, worn-out way of applying for a job." He leans in toward the partners "…Resumes are the past; I’m the future."
"Ahh, the future," Bumstead says, sitting back in his stuffed wingback chair and studying the young candidate. "Out of curiosity, what experience do you have that qualifies you to work here?"
"Now, you see… that’s exactly what I’m talking about."Obama stands up and starts pacing back and forth, working the room… "Focusing on experience is so old school, it’s the old-style way of doing things. You need to change the way you think… that old way of thinking will only lead to more of the same."
"What exactly does that mean?" interrupts Brown, "Isn’t experience a valid indicator of character, judgment and capabilities?"
"That’s not the point," says Obama, warming up to the discussion. "Don’t focus on what I’ve done or haven’t done in the past; focus on what I can do in the future."
"Which is?" asks Tate.
"There you go again nitpicking about specifics… you’re really not getting this, are you?" Obama sits back down and looks sympathetically at the partners. "I’m talking about hope... hope and change. Change with a capital 'C.' And all you want to do is ask if I’m qualified for the job."
"Sooo… why should we hire you instead of that fellow who was just in here?" Fenster sifts through his files and picks up one, looking at the name through his spectacles. "McCain, that’s the name. He’s had a lot of experience and provided a resume with a lengthy track record."
"Well," Obama says as he leans forward, "far be it from me to point this out, but did you notice how old that guy is? You didn’t hear that from me, by the way."
"True," mutters Bumstead, "that would account for why he has so much experience to list on his resume."
Obama leans back, "Now you’re getting it… how can you possibly trust someone with that much experience?"
Fenster sits up. "I think I’m starting to see… you’re lack of experience actually makes you the more qualified candidate." He looks at his colleagues and begins to explain… "You see, gentlemen, this young man isn’t tarnished by years of doing… he’s unencumbered by the experiences that you or I would normally look for in a new hire."Obama jumps to his feet sensing a sea change…
"Right you are, Fenster. I’m a clean slate… I’m not bringing any preconceived notions to the table… baggage-free, that’s me."
Bumstead, staring at Fenster… "But don’t we value experience?"
"Grow up, Bumstead… valuing experience? What a load of crap. Like this young man says, the only thing experience will get you is more of the same."
Fenster walks across the room to shakes hands. "Frankly, I’d like to welcome Barack to the firm."
Tate looks at the others… "Shouldn’t we vote on it?"
Obama and Fenster glance at each other, sharing a knowing grin and a shake of the head.
"Tate," Fenster says patiently, "voting is so old school… we need to redraw the rules and change the landscape."Fenster wanders over to the windows and looks out over the city."The firm needs the lack of experience that this fine man can bring to the table if we ever hope to stop doing things the way we’ve done them in the past and get busy doing things differently in a new, changed way."
Bumstead looks around the room. "So, style over substance?"
"I don’t know, Fenster," Brown says, "…it sounds a bit like change for change sake. I thought we liked potential hires who showed up with lots of experience?"
"That was before," Fenster replies, "…it’s a new world, Brown, a dangerous world filled with troubles. The last thing we want to be doing is trying to use experience to deal with those troubles."
"He’s right, fellas," says Obama as he joins Fenster at the window. "You start hiring those old guys, not that I’m calling that McCain guy old, mind you, and you’ll be buying into the same tired argument about experience being a good thing."
"And, it’s not..." Tate ponders out loud."
No, it’s not," Fenster says helpfully.
"Not at all," Obama adds reassuredly. The others slowly start nodding in agreement.
"That does it, then," Fenster announces with a clap of the hands, "I guess someone should let McCain know that his experience makes him totally unsuitable for the job."
Wow. Talk about a perfect
June 11, 2008 - 09:41 ET by motherbeltWow. Talk about a perfect metaphor!
ROFL!
I found it here. Good
June 11, 2008 - 12:15 ET by stratmanI found it here.
Good satire.
The writer is ex-CIA.
RRAM Tough!
Absolutely spot on...
June 11, 2008 - 12:28 ET by ontherightThat is fantastic!
Now, if only we could disseminate this message around the country, no, around the world a few times and maybe, just maybe we might be able to derail the Obama "Hope & Change" juggernaut.
Wishful thinking, anyway.
Well, I just sent the link
June 11, 2008 - 15:32 ET by motherbeltWell, I just sent the link to all my email buddies.....
Wait a minute...
June 11, 2008 - 10:21 ET by ThatDudeThey're suggesting that Obama is a centrist? It's beyond me how they can be so blind or bold as to make such a claim. If you want an actual centrist, look no further than McCain. I also have a problem with the fact that the manner in which they talked down the right-wing solutions was to say they weren't "popular." What kind of foolish argument are they trying to make? Even with the slant, they make it apparent that Obama's plans are wrong.
So ... who're you voting for Andrea?
June 11, 2008 - 11:24 ET by CrashThis is like Hollywood rewriting & retelling classic stories like Senior Zorro or Robin Hood. If one didn't read the classics and only watch the slop poured into the soylent trough they'd probably think of the line, "he stole from the rich, gave to the poor." But, the real tale was not about stealing from the rich. It was about taking money from abusive tax collectors and returning it back to its rightful owners.
Andrea honey, you might wanna trade your expensive baubles and your air conditioned summer house in the Hamptons to offset the guilt of your "old-fashioned" ambition. "Change" starts with you first "sweetheart."
Back to the point
June 11, 2008 - 11:47 ET by cvgbuckeyeCrash: Someone finally got back to the original point: The absolutely shameless, water carrying devotion that the MSM has to any dem or leftist candidate.
It it were not bad enough by itself, when these people are done with all this, (and it will end some day), they will have left the supposed free press, that many people died for, in an absolute and likely irrepairable shambles.
Right before they are done with this suicide march, they will emmasculate talk radio, attempting to blame this last safe harbor for the 1st amendment.
They only need one more element to totally enable them and that is the election of this anti-christ named Barack Hussein Obama.
God help the USA!
Surprise, Surprise
June 11, 2008 - 11:22 ET by Rush FanCan you expect anything less from Andrea Mitchell and the folks at MSNBC? If you kept the TV tuned to MSNBC all the time, you would have enough liberal and far-left rubbish spewing from that channel to fill NewsBusters. Even Scarborough, who is supposed to be the MSNBC token on the right side of the political spectrum, leans left in order to keep his job.
I don't buy products from GE due to MSNBC
M. S. N. B. C.
June 11, 2008 - 13:15 ET by ThisnThatMitchell Signs oN to Barrack Campaign
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
How did Rubin-omics work again?
June 11, 2008 - 12:03 ET by GalvanicMITCHELL: Well, what it means is helping people, doing things
on health care. Government programs that do help people on health and
education, but paying for everything. So it is the kind of responsible
economics, some would say, that led to a lot of growth in the 90s because
people on Wall Street were reassured you wouldn't be growing the
deficit. So it's not going crazy on social programs without paying as
you go, and it's also doing something to make the tax code fairer.
If Clinton and Rubin made it work, then, Ms. Mitchell, can you explain why they failed to deliver Federal programs on health and education? According to you, the money was there. So, why didn't Clinton give us health care and free college education?
Robert Rubin?
June 11, 2008 - 15:26 ET by okiehawk44Andrea, didn't Robert Rubin go on to become the CFO of Enron? Remember Enron Andrea?
Sadly, millions of sheeple
June 11, 2008 - 12:28 ET by mattmSadly, millions of sheeple fall for this line of bull.
Rush
June 11, 2008 - 12:57 ET by BlondeJust mentioned this great post by Mark on Newsbusters, and read the first paragraph or so.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Thanks for mentioning,
June 11, 2008 - 13:02 ET by Mark FinkelsteinThanks for mentioning, Blonde: it's always a kick to be mentioned by Rush.
Glad to do it, Mark.
June 11, 2008 - 13:12 ET by BlondeAs you know, I share a fondness for Morning Joe, (thank heavens Joe is back!)...and it's even funnier to hear the dumb stuff that Andrea says than Mika's liberal twitisms.
MSNBC ought to just change it's name to ObamaNews.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
If Obama is a centrist I am a pope
June 11, 2008 - 15:04 ET by ChiefE9Obama is as far left as you can go.
He has socialist, marxist, Soros ideas not good for America.
Where in the Constitution
June 11, 2008 - 15:15 ET by c5thenDoes it give the federal government authority to "control" the economy or to tax one set of "people" (the evil rich) in order to help another set of people (the poor)? That is called wealth redistribution and is a Socialist concept.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.