Krauthammer Smacks Down Totenberg: Obama 'Said He Wouldn’t Sign a Bill That Didn’t Increase Taxes...Was He Lying?'
Charles Krauthammer on Friday evening exposed a classic liberal media hypocrisy concerning the differing bar used to determine truthfulness in politicians depending on their political leaning.
When "Inside Washington" panelist Nina Totenberg (NPR) asked if Republican presidential candidates might not have been totally honest Thursday evening when they all said they wouldn't accept a budget that incorporated ten dollars worth of spending cuts for every dollar raised in taxes, Krauthammer smartly responded, "Obama in the end said he wouldn’t sign a bill that didn’t increase taxes. In the end, he did. Was he lying?" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
COLBY KING, WASHINGTON POST: But I found most telling, the thing I found most telling in the debate was a question that was raised by Bret Baier the moderator.
GORDON PETERSON, HOST: Good moderator.
KING: Excellent moderator. As a matter of fact I thought the panel was very good except for a couple of questions.
NINA TOTENBERG, NPR: Hmm hmm.
KING: When he asked about a deal, “Would you accept a deal when you get ten, you know, for every ten dollars, ten cuts you get one tax increase?” To a person, they all said they would reject such a deal. That tells you about where the Republican field is. It’s, it’s Tea Party locked in.
ROGER SIMON, POLITICO: Exactly, they all joined the Tea Party at that moment.
KING: Yeah.
PETERSON: Ten to one. No?
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Yeah, well, I would do it.
[Laughter]
PETERSON: You’re not running.
NINA TOTENBERG, NPR: And I think that was the problem for the Republican Party in this debate. I mean, you know, Romney definitely by staying above the fray was the, as you sad, adult in the room. But when you sort of, any Party gets defined by these debates somewhat, and if you, if the Party looks whacky, which that answer makes it look, it’s not good for the Party.
KRAUTHAMMER: On, come on, don’t be silly. The Republican, if you’re a Republican nominee, and you’re running in Iowa, the first caucus, of course you’re going to take a hard line…
TOTENBERG: What, you’re going to lie?
KRAUTHAMMER: …you take a hard line on taxes. Obama in the end said he wouldn’t sign a bill that didn’t increase taxes. In the end, he did. Was he lying?
Exactly.
It really has been amazing to watch media members like Totenberg completely forgive Obama all the promises he's broken.
From extending the Bush tax cuts, to leaving Gitmo open, continuing renditions, and most recently raising the debt ceiling without tax hikes, the current White House resident has gone back on more pledges in a shorter period of time than virtually any president in recent memory.
When a Republican does this - for example, George H.W. Bush with his no new taxes campaign promise - he is thoroughly excoriated by the press even if they support his new position.
But Obama can promise the American people anything he wants and break such assurances with the full knowledge that his faithful supporters in the media will either ignore his transgression or cover it up.
Must be nice.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Wow.
Submitted by Chris Norman on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 1:35am.
Wow, Krauthammer is quick to be spot on. I wish Republican politicians were as quick-witted in dealing with the liberal media parrots.
"No pecuniary consideration
Submitted by rbosque on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 1:54am.
"No pecuniary consideration is more urgent, than the regular redemption and discharge of the public debt: on none can delay be more injurious, or an economy of time more valuable. ... Cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible: avoiding occasions of expence [and] avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt ... not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burthen which we ourselves ought to bear." --George Washington, December 3, 1793
Fabulous Quote!
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 1:33pm.
Almost 220 years ago, and the most cogent thing one could possibly find about our situation today.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
You know I appreciate The Hammer's honesty...
Submitted by gmaniac1 on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 1:55am.
especially about the 10-1 tax revenue deal. And yes I may take it as well with more stringent, permanent spending cuts in the fold. But generally speaking I would probably reject it in the short run.
That stated, Totenberg, you know the one related to Ice Berg of the Titanic fame, has nothing but rhetoric. She could less about anything other than sounding right.
Yeah...........but from the
Submitted by killa37 on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 1:57am.
Yeah...........but from the moment after Boy Blamegame signed the debt deal that 'didn't include any taxes'........he's been shooting off his mouth (along with Harry the Weasel and others) about how they're going to have to 'increase revenue' and 'pay (y)our fair share' and all of the rest of that commie BS that these guys are hard-wired to. So the question is rather disingenuous, and the answer is even moreso.........if you're a lib/Dem. The Repub debaters at least had enough collective common sense to realize that the question was a set-up. The 'spending cuts' NEVER materilize as anything that they were purported to be, but the tax increases ALWAYS kick in as soon as possible!!!
I would reject it too
Submitted by ckc1227 on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 3:20am.
There's no reason to raise taxes on anyone. It makes about as much sense as saying we'll give you 10 cuts if you'll let us legalize one drug.
Cut spending, loosen the oppressive regulations, and stop demonizing business and wealth, and you'll get plenty of extra revenue, without raising a single tax.
Krauthammer is unsurpassed in throwing concise and
Submitted by Rush Fan on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 3:39am.
effective zingers at his opponents.
I noticed that all the leftist panelist were in agreement that the Republican debate last night was handled well by the Fox News panel. The Left is singing praises for Fox News? Something just doesn't seem kosher. I'm suspicious whenever the Left touts one of our candidates (as they did John McCain, until he was nominated), or a right-leaning media network.
As I posted HERE, the Left was ecstatic with last night's debate because of the gotcha questions asked by the Fox panelists.
--------------------
Drudge has a link to a Guardian article titled: Rick Perry to delight climate sceptics by running for president. Here is a snippet of the article:
Now if Chris Christie had thrown his hat into the ring, the Left would have been praising Christie for his strong belief in Global Warming.
When a Republican does this -
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 6:21am.
When a Republican does this - for example, George H.W. Bush with his no new taxes campaign promise - he is thoroughly excoriated by the press even if they support his new position.
Exactly. The whole fake crisis about the "debt ceiling" was ginned up to FORCE Republicans to agree to TAX increases, so they can be attacked in 2012 by the DYSENTERY-DEMOCRAT-MEDIA-COMPLEX.
Only it blew up in Obama's sneering face when the Republicans, for all their missteps, stood their ground, unlike Bush Sr.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
I heard Newt's comments on
Submitted by fatboy on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 6:43am.
I heard Newt's comments on Quinn & Rose and think he's right. These debates have become more about spectacle than substance and now, even FOX has jumped on that bandwagon. I don't watch them for that reason...a waste of my time.
More spectacle than substance?
Submitted by ironchefofmunchies on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 12:12pm.
I hate to sound cynical, but it ain't just the debates my friend-this is ALL politics now.
Now I Would Have Done It Differently
Submitted by Maestroh on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 7:09am.
They should have taken the 10-1 deal but with a caveat: they should have said we were going to do the SPENDING CUTS now and the TAX INCREASES FIVE YEARS from now when the economy is better.
Anyone dumb enough to trust a Democrat to cut anything other than defense spending is a fool who has no business in Washington. They never have, they never will.
Get the cuts up front.
And then drill them on the tax increases five years up the line. In other words, do to them what they do.
Reagan was offered. . .
Submitted by rickbren on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 7:55am.
. . . similar deal. Not quite as big. But the tax cuts promised by the dems NEVER were made!! Dems cutting spending is like a coke addict who quits snorting. It doesn't happen. . .
Your right,
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 7:37pm.
They were to cut 2 dollars for every dollar in new Taxes, but the dimwits lied, been lying since. A few years later they pressured Bush Sr to accept tax increases, then threw them back in his face with the "read my lips" quote.
The dimwits lie like rugs, very filthy doormats
Dems will promise anything to get
Submitted by texasborngranny on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 9:25pm.
what they want, and then renege on their 'promise'.
Michael Reagan countered claims a Democratic advertisement attempted to make in using his dad’s words to attack Republicans over the debt ceiling fight.
“When my father was president, the Democrats promised him $3 in spending cuts for every dollar of new taxes,” said Reagan, a Republican strategist who is spokesman for The Reagan Nation and chairman and president of The Reagan Legacy Foundation.
“When my father died in 2004, he was still waiting for the spending cuts.”
Dems lied then, they've lied since, they're lying now and they'll lie in the future.
Reagan was offered. . .
Submitted by rickbren on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 7:55am.
. . . similar deal. Not quite as big. But the tax cuts promised by the dems NEVER were made!! Dems cutting spending is like a coke addict who quits snorting. It doesn't happen. . .
CK is spot on ...
Submitted by Bodini on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 9:10am.
CK is spot on ... but then again, the question of whether BO LIES is easily answered! Were his lips moving?
Was he lying?
Submitted by jon_torlin on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 10:04am.
I would have followed up that question with "was he talking?" basically because anything these days out of his mouth is a lie or at best(and I'm saying this conservatively) a half-truth which is as bad as a lie, especially when he's using his prompter.
So "was he lying?" has an automatic yes answer.
-Jon
These days', Jon???? Aside
Submitted by killa37 on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 10:23am.
These days', Jon???? Aside from promising to 'fundamentally change this nation', how many other statements have come out of Boy Blah-Blah's mouth that were honest or true???
Should have said it differently
Submitted by jon_torlin on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 11:06am.
I meant these days to the average viewer, someone who's not as smart about this fraud like we were when he first came into the public scene.(for me, it was Joe the Plumber when I first knew what he really was like, had suspicions before that)
Of course, there are the times when he's off script(off prompter) and isn't seemingly stuttering like a moron "uh uh uh" while trying to avoid his real feelings coming out, he'll let slip his true ideas, that's when he tells a little more of the truth.
Hopefully more and more people will figure this out. I wish they had figured this out in the first year, maybe we could have avoided this mess we're in now.
I doubt that.
-Jon
I know what you meant,
Submitted by killa37 on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 2:28pm.
I know what you meant, Jon-E-Boy..........I had a little insomnia last night, so I was just looking around the news, and that's when I wrote it. And you're right about when Boy Blunder is off-script and being forced to try and find a coherent thought and NOT have it sound like a lie..........sometimes he does say things that are actually fairly true to his real beliefs.
I do think the BS-awareness is starting to spread to a lot of people who either supported him, or didn't really even care about politics - but are now in a position to where they're wondering what the hell happened!!!
Unfortunatly, the MSM is going to ride this train all the way off the cliff..........and then try and write their way out of what just happened for the past 4 years.
Dontjaknow? Reps lie, Obama
Submitted by H_Tuttle on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 10:22am.
Dontjaknow?
Reps lie, Obama has 'intellectually reevaluated the data and come to an altered conclusion'.
He's got a word for it -
Submitted by killa37 on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 10:25am.
He's got a word for it - 'recalibrate'.............
"Bush" Tax Cuts
Submitted by Galvanic on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 10:45am.
The Dems and their MSM parrots also call for ending the Bush Tax Cuts. But those cuts were extended past their expiration date by Obama and the Democratic Congress.
They are now the OBAMA TAXCUTS.
don't forget "for the rich"
Submitted by dmacleo on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 1:34pm.
the democrat talking points never mention these cuts were for every taxpayer.
The damndest thing about G H W Bush's tax increase & the MSM . .
Submitted by Gary Hall on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 10:48am.
The MSM loves tax increases - so why didn't they praise President George H W Bush's tax increase, rather then abusing him for 25 + years over it?
Same with radical angry conservative hating lefties. I can't begin to count the number of times that a loud mouthed intellectual elitist shaped Democrat got in my face and touted me with, "Yea - but read my lips, 'no new taxes.' What a lying d--k that guy was. We should have kicked him out for that."
Really? You think they'd be singing the high praises to Saint Take My Money. It's nothing short of "group hate." They are so full of hate, that they cannot even think clearly outside of their little box.
(;~> gary
Do liberals not see
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 11:08am.
how the issue of -no, the need to raise taxes is defining them? Look, we all know that's the liberal mantra, "tax and spend", but liberals know that ending the Bush-era tax rates for individuals grossing over $200k grand is not going to solve the fiscal problems we face. In fact, it will hardly put a dent in them, and could make them worse.
Yet they're laying everything on the line for this marginal tax increase. They look petty and broken. And somewhat vengeful.
Pay attention, friends
Submitted by HockeyKid on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 1:29pm.
The left has won this one. Why? Because they've succeeded in framing the debate in terms of a ratio between tax increases and spending cuts. The moment that concept is accepted, it means tax cuts must be accompanied by spending increases. Obviously, this is a nonsensical relationship, but once its accepted in the debate--not the terms, but the discussion of the ratio as though it's de facto--then the Dems have forever removed the potential to actually, seriously, cut the size of federal government.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Bull
Submitted by Joe W. on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 2:22pm.
The left didn't win anything, my friend, since the Republicans, to a candidate, rejected any tax increase at ANY ratio. That was the whole point. The right is against tax increases. Period. And their solidarity on the issue reinforced that commitment.
liberals are liars
Submitted by ohio granny on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 3:51pm.
All liberals/democrats are LIARS. They will lie about anything to get their way. They will even sell out their children and parents if they think it is necessary to gain power.
ohio granny
Submitted by mandrake on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 4:02pm.
Guess you never heard of a certain chap named Richard Nixon? I believe he was a Republican..no?
Note, Uncle---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 6:14pm.
it is NOT required at NewsBusters to bring up either Republicans or conservatives when talking about which Party the bulk of lying politicians reside in.
If you are looking for an entity who will faithfully balance ALL denunciations of political machinations, try the NY Times. :o)
MD
Richard Nixon was a
Submitted by killa37 on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 7:11pm.
Richard Nixon was a third-rate amateur piker compared to what goes on at the upper echelons of politics these days.........you look at what he was run out of town for, and juxtapose it to ANY of the shenanigans, lies, fabrications, deceits, dirty tricks, and everything else that goes on - as a NORMAL political way of life - these days, and you'd have to wonder why the guy was villified so brutally.
And I'd have to say that the liberal arm of the Democratic Party (oh, did I just repeat myself), are the undisputed champions of this type of activity - year in and year out!!
I love this guy!
Submitted by ironhead4099 on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 6:36pm.
The Hammer strikes again! you would think these numbnuts on these shows would learn not to be COMPLETELY studid when he's around. It certainly seems that the Hammer has any problem slapping there dumb ass down! That's the best part of all this!
Kept Promises
Submitted by Mike009 on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 7:15pm.
Soon after Bill Clinton was elected, he raised taxes - after promising a middle class tax cut all during his campaign. When asked about this broken promise, then-Clinton aide George Stepanapoluos said, "The President kept the promises he intended to keep."
Incorrect, Mike....
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 6:22am.
Clinton backed away from a middle class tax cut pledge well before the election.
Jer
Cleavage?????
Submitted by GregE on Sat, 08/13/2011 - 10:37pm.
Nina Totenberg? Good googly moogly!!! Who made that call, and WHY? Why oh WHY!!! LOL
I know Obama said he would veto a short term deal, but
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 6:26am.
I haven't been able to find any unequivocal statement that he would veto any bill which didn't contain tax hikes. He may have, but I haven't been able to locate it, although there are multiple references to his vow to reject a short term deal.
Jer
What's so stupid about this
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 2:08am.
is that they say we can't cut back on spending because Keynes' would not be pleased (shorthand) but this is forgetting that two parts of Keynesian fiscal policy in a recession is 1) government expenditure and 2) cutting taxes to increase consumer cash.
So Keynesian fiscal policy is not satisfied by either method of bringing the government under budget, so were people faithful to Keynesian fiscal policy, they would not have tried to stress anything but raising the ceiling and hoping to get past this economic downturn.
However, cutting taxes means the consumers have more money to buy what they want--thus stirring a consumer economy, and spending means the government getting what it wants, and stirring the government services economy. With the Dems desire to make the government the lifeline, one side favors that agenda and stimulating the consumer demand which must come back for a consumer economy to regain strength is not part of it.
So it is arguable that if the Dems view the tax base as something that is never going to be better, a government-controlled economy demands higher taxes to fund the government as income provider.