House Majority Whip Schools CNN's Candy Crowley on Why No Debt Deal
"Why can you not get this deal?"
That was the attitude of CNN's Candy Crowley on yesterday's State of the Union. She acted like if only the Republicans were "reasonable" and accepted some "revenue" enhancements, then a deficit deal could be cut. House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy set her straight on why the deal as presented was unacceptable. Oh, Candy tried and tried to make a deficit deal agreement seem reasonable but McCarthy kept knocking her assertions out of the ball park as you can see in the interview video below the fold. Candy led off by accusing House Speaker John Boehner of engaging in a "bargaining ploy" instead of serious negotiation. McCarthy hit that accusation out of the ballpark while simultaneously stressing the sad state of the current unemployment situation in this country:
CANDY CROWLEY: Joining me now to try to make sense of where things stand, House Republican Whip Kevin McCarthy of California. I just feel like we are -- if I am out there listening to this, I want to strangle all of you. Why can you not get this deal? This looks to me like a strategic bargaining ploy rather than where we're actually going to end up, from Speaker Boehner.
KEVIN MCCARTHY: Oh, I don't see that at all. Boehner has been very clear that there is no votes for a tax increase. And you look at the jobs data, it was only 18,000 jobs, Canada has fewer people than live in California, created more jobs than America.
Crowley later thought she caught McCarthy in an error about the size of the Obama stimulus.
MCCARTHY: Job growth in America today, start-ups is lower than it has been in 17 years from the policies of this president and this administration. He created a stimulus plan that created more than a -- spent more than a trillion dollars, it cost $278,000 for every single job. I think we have to do a new direction.
CROWLEY: OK. Just the stimulus plan was about $800 billion...
MCCARTHY: No, with interest, 1.1.
Oops!
In the reasonable vs unreasonable vein Crowley then asked what the Republicans would "give up" since it appeared that Obama was willing to compromise:
CROWLEY: So what would you give up? Let's put it that way. It looks as though -- I mean, I think when you're looking at this, it looks as though -- at least we are led to believe, the president has said, fine, I will put in entitlements, Medicare, Social Security on the table, and you all have said no to anything on the revenue side, sort of consistently. So what are you willing to do that will get these things back on track?
MCCARTHY: Well, you want to know what we're willing to do? We're willing to set out a framework that puts America back on a real track, where it has tax reform, where it reforms the process. Then you close the loopholes.
And then a painful reminder that the "reasonable" Democrats haven't even produced a budget since 2009:
CROWLEY: ... taxes between now and the 2nd of August when this debt ceiling thing blows up
MCCARTHY: Well, you know what, we produced a budget in four months. You know this Democrat-controlled Senate, it has been more than 100 days. You go back to 2009. They never produced a budget. We laid out a reform to Social Security and Medicare to save them. The president has not.
Then Crowley brought up "Bush tax hikes for the wealthy" although in her confusion by this time, she probably meant "Bush tax cuts for the wealthy."
CROWLEY: So the speaker has -- the speaker could not -- even if he wanted to and we're led to believe he was willing, the speaker cannot let go of, for instance, the Bush tax hikes for the wealthy because you don't have the votes for it to back that up, is that correct?
MCCARTHY: Speaker Pelosi did not have the votes for it when they were in the majority.
CROWLEY: So you don't have the votes for it, either.
MCCARTHY: Speaker Pelosi did not have the votes when they controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House. Why didn't they raise them then? Because they know it is bad policy, especially in a down economy.
Crowley takes one last stab at the need for Republicans to "give" in the deficit negotiations:
CROWLEY: ...But the thing is, there just seems to me that there has to be some willingness to give, and I have not heard anything from you about, yes, you know what, I would go -- if we could get a deal that would cut 2.5 trillion in savings, I would agree to this on the revenue side. There's nothing on the revenue side you will agree to?
MCCARTHY: Well, you know, Candy, I've never found one tax increase that created a job. I have watched our economy sputter downward. I've been out across the American public, they want to go back to work. And I know those policies will fail. So in principle, no, we're not going to go there. But I also do know that government has spent too much. They have increased spending 73 percent in discretionary in the last three years. I don't know any American household that has done that. So, you know what, this government needs to live like those American households. I'm tired of the gimmicks, I'm tired of the budget tricks and the accounting tricks that goes forward. This has to be an honest approach. We are at a threshold that we need to change. We are not losing jobs because our credit card didn't have a higher limit. We are losing our jobs because we are spending too much. It's not that difficult to do. We have sat in the room honestly with the Democrats, we have moved forward with them all the way. But they keep saying one thing, they want to raise more taxes.
Annnnd....out of the ballpark it goes. This interview has to stand as a classic in how to respond when a member of the media accuses Republicans of not being "reasonable" by accepting phony deals offered to them by Democrats.
- P.J. Gladnick's blog
- Login to post comments















Comments
Rhetorical Question
Submitted by Chris Norman on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 8:22pm.
Why can't even the stubbornly liberal media understand that it isn't acceptable to agree to be a part of something that is clearly wrong (tax hikes) to get just a part of something that is clearly right (spending cuts)?
Is Crowley
Submitted by MinneMike on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 8:23pm.
Extra large? She said she wanted to strangle McCarthy. Much worse if she was to sit on him.
He should have just slapped her.
Submitted by NeoKong on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 8:29pm.
That's what you do when someone loses it.
What the hell was she doing besides pleading with him to cave in to Democrats.
She was openly begging him to raise taxes. Is that what passes for journalism now on CNN....?
We, those of us who really love and care about this country.....
Submitted by gailannr on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 12:07am.
Need to challenge these male and female media whores. Please excuse my angry language but haven't we just about had enough of them running/ruining our country?!!!!
We need to shut them the hell up! Challenge them on everything! NEVER GIVE UP, NEVER GIVE IN!!!!!! Come on people! Let's get mad as hell and not take it anymore! NO NEW TAXES, BALANCE THE BUDGET, DUMP OBAMA CARE!
Fret not, Candy, as Boehner will ultimately cave and be rolled..
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 8:34pm.
...like a cheap Persian rug.
He'll cut some kind of deal to raise the debt ceiling, as well as go along with some "temporary" form of a tax increases, just as long as Obama promises to deliver on some obscure future spending cuts.
The debt ceiling will go up, the temporary tax increases will somehow become permanent, and the promised spending cuts will never happen.
We've seen this movie before.
Many times.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Damn Dave
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 8:40pm.
I aint got to many Balloons left?
Boudin,
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 8:51pm.
Yeah, and I'm all out of popcorn, too.
Not to mention patience.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
As I said in the other thread....
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 10:16pm.
if they cave on this, they will be in the political wilderness for 20 years. At least.
You're Right, Dave.
Submitted by Tenebrous on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 7:07pm.
This time cannot be any different. And it's not because of the players or the Tea Party or any of the other interesting, unique facets of the debate. It can't be different because pessimists can never be wrong. It's really ego and a morbid fascination with wanting bad things to happen just so that you can say you were right. If you are out of patience and really want to do something, then let's hear what you've done. But why bother, right? Just break out some hot dogs and roast them over the ruins, so you can say "I told you so."
Visions and Principles blog
Drone
Submitted by Curly on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 8:31pm.
Candy is an "unschoolable" drone.
Bigger than a drone
Submitted by Galvanic on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 9:13pm.
She's more like the Garfield balloon in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade.
McCarthy really crushed her in this exchange.
And Crowley is clueless as to
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 8:31am.
And Crowley is clueless as to how badly she was crushed.
I've never seen this woman before
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 8:32pm.
is she always that antagonistic? That was a disgraceful interview!
I would like a conservative to ask the most obvious question when asked why they won't bend on tax increases: "How will increasing taxes of any kind on anyone, help the economy?" Please, someone, just ask that question!
Bk
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 9:00pm.
I've never seen her this antagonistic before. The strangling comment, pretty over the top IMHO. But I've also never seen her interview a Republican before.
Candy Crowley believes that she's smart, but she isn't.
Submitted by Thalpy on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 9:16pm.
She is also part of the legion of CNN political hacks who are more interested in pushing the Leftist agenda than presenting the news.
Could the GOP be learning?
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 8:42pm.
THIS is how to do an interview. Be prepared, be concise, and get your message across.
And do NOT under any
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 8:32am.
And do NOT under any circumstances allow the interviewer to sidetrack the focus via red herrings.
NO TAXES
Submitted by ken johnson on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 8:43pm.
Where was the compromise on heathcare they locked the republicans completly out. NO COMPROMISE ON ANYTHING IF THEY WANT A TAX INCREASE THEY SHOULD MAKE A NON-DEDUCTIBLE DONATION TO THE US TREASURY
It's Inevitable
Submitted by Samaritan01 on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 8:58pm.
Boehner will fold like a cheap tent and he will give Obama and the leftists everything they want....and in return he will get a "promise" to cut spending in the future, that and a nice pat on the butt.......
E-mail him
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 9:06pm.
Here,
Google has an addy for you to use
Ditto
Submitted by IrateNate on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 9:25pm.
Your opinion echoes my own, along with countless others from various walks. It is sad that this side-show carny act we call Congress is so predictable.
I see an eleventh-hour "compromise" resulting in an increased Line o' Credit, a tax increase that won't kick in until after the 2012 elections, along with promises of future spending cuts. For instance, by promising not to purchase Ford Motor Company, Obama has already saved or created $65 billion.
Obama's idea that spending cuts must be offset by tax increases is incomprehensible. I suppose the theory is that a $1.0 trillion deficit is better than a $1.3 trillion deficit. Why, that's $3 trillion saved over ten years - problem solved!
Oh, wait...in ten years our debt will grow to over $22 trillion. But, as Obama will surely reminds us, it would have been much worse had we done nothing.
We already have Obamacare to look forward to in 2014. What else will this buffoon foist upon us before we can run him off?
I Want to Hear Your Lottery Picks
Submitted by Tenebrous on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 7:11pm.
Seriously. You and the other gloom and doomers seem to be able to predict the fortune so well, I'd like to know your lottery picks. Or have you used up all your predictive powers for the day already? I've got a better idea: since you know that the future is going to suck and there's nothing we can do about it, why don't you just kill yourselves? Or are you going to be hypocrites in the end?
Visions and Principles blog
Candy Crowley . . Hello Howie Kurtz
Submitted by Gary Hall on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 9:23pm.
Another moment of air time for the MSM, and another "what planet does Howie Kurtz reside on" reality check.
(;~> gary
More Dense than Lead
Submitted by Bill Brasky on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 10:11pm.
Another dopey liberal "journalist" totally bewildered by the facts.
This is a perfect example of how important it is to select a
Submitted by Rush Fan on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 10:58pm.
Republican spokesperson who, whether they are up against a liberal 'journalist' or a Democrat extreme-left President, is articulate, knowledgeable, self-assured, and energetically forceful. When it comes to politics and elections, having the right course of action means little, if you can't articulate your guiding principles and policies and persuade the voters.
I should have added that Republican House Majority Whip
Submitted by Rush Fan on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 5:52pm.
Kevin McCarthy is an outstanding example of the type of Republican spokesperson I described above. We have many more of them, but it's usually the RINOs such as McCain and Graham who the leftist media invite to speak.
Since Kevin McCarthy had a splendid and effective response to every one of Candy Crowley's biased liberal questions, I would be very surprised if Rep. McCarthy is invited back to Democrat-supported CNN.
What a guy
Submitted by ampul man on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 5:56am.
All I can say is Wow!
And Candy needs to make with a little less hand action.
CNN, the Clinton News Network---Bill decides; Hill reports
Want more "revenue"?
Submitted by ThisnThat on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 6:54am.
Then cut the fraud. Where is o'bama's pledge to immediately cut fraud? How much has he cut so far?
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
Bush tax cuts for the rich...
Submitted by dmacleo on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 7:38am.
I hate this phrase and whenever brought up wish the idiots on the R side would force the fact these cuts were for EVERY taxpayer.
EVERY taxpayer, not just rich ones.
Why can't we get a budgeting deal?
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 8:49am.
And yet the press is not too interested in why we couldn't get a budget out of the Dem congress!
If the liberal MSM actually
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 11:46am.
If the liberal MSM actually started reporting on that with the same fervor they do with conservative issues then you know the liberal MSM has fully abandoned the Obama regime.
Too much compromise for too long.
Submitted by Boil It Down on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 10:26am.
So, all the money Congress has squeezed out of the taxpayers since 2007 isn't enough for them? They expect a compromise for more taxes for them to squander. Well it's been nothing but compromise after compromise and it absolutely has to stop. Of course the liberal media has their six, pushing to drive the country to ruin.
They're like spoiled children that are about to be cut off. Let them sit in their room and cry their eyes out until they learn some responsibility. -bidn-
Media Activists
Submitted by vote24 on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 4:57pm.
If I were a conservative appearing on a liberal network. I would answer every first question with a question...So you are a Democrat right? You voted for Obama right? Ok, I just thought the viewers should know where you are coming from. Is this an interview or a debate? If this is a debate, then who are YOU representing? And why am I debating a left wing activist on television? What is your degree? Do you have an economics degree? Do you have foreign policy experience? Why are you staunchly advocating for any position as a newsperson. I just think your viewers might like to know. Why is this interview so combattive and accusatory? Do you treat Democrats that way? Right there live on the air. We really need to chip away at their extreme bias.
vote24---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 07/13/2011 - 5:55pm.
Excellent !!
like- like - like !!!
MD
McCarthy was really good. The
Submitted by Ryan Mc. on Tue, 07/12/2011 - 5:47pm.
McCarthy was really good. The only thing he didn't say that I would have added is that in 1986 the Dems promised spending cuts. In 1990 dems promised spending cuts for tax increases. I would have told Candy, its time for dems to cave in for the first time. They owe us two rounds of spending cuts that we are still waiting on.
Its also crazy to say we'll increase spending 75% in three years and now cutting by 25% is not compromising. I'd say the fact that we aren't demanding 75% decrease is a huge compromise.
Today she interviewed White
Submitted by amyshulk on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 12:47am.
Today she interviewed White House Budget Director Jacob Lew and he said "WE were sent here" and she couldn't even challenge that???
Ronald Reagan