Well, that didn’t take long. On CNN Monday night, John McCain was treated like any other conservative Republican, as correspondents and a tilted panel of ex-Clinton officials painted him as irresponsible for opposing a supposedly necessary increase in taxes. In a “Keeping Them Honest” segment on Anderson Cooper 360, reporter Tom Foreman wondered if McCain “can keep that promise” of “no new taxes,” before asserting: “Some economists say not.”
But Foreman’s sole economist was Robert Greenstein of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a longstanding proponent of higher taxes. Foreman provided no “liberal” tag nor gave any hint of Greenstein’s agenda, as the latter argued that “the problems in the future are so large that it’s pretty unthinkable we could close those deficits either by just cutting programs or just raising taxes.”
Foreman’s piece quoted two liberals -- Greenstein and Democratic strategist Peter Fenn (who was oddly used as an authority on budgets and taxes -- but just one Republican, consultant Rich Galen. And Foreman himself sought to discredit McCain’s “no new taxes” stance by ticking off some of the “costs hammering the budget: the war, a half-trillion dollars so far, by some estimates; that economic stimulus plan, $168 billion; soaring entitlements for baby boomers; interest on the national debt. All that with no new taxes?”
Then in the panel discussion that followed Foreman’s piece, conservative Bay Buchanan was outnumbered by two ex-staffers to President Bill Clinton: CNN regular David Gergen and Keith Boykin, now the editor of The Daily Voice, which bills itself as “black America’s daily news source.” Anchor Anderson Cooper at one point pitched a softball to the liberal Boykin, asking about McCain, “Do you believe this is a responsible pledge.” Boykin gleefully pounced, “Absolutely irresponsible.”
For his part, Gergen argued that McCain was falling into the same “trap” that ensnared the first President Bush after his “no new taxes” pledge in the 1988 campaign: “I'm surprised that he's taken this pledge, because it was a trap for George H.W. Bush when he said, read my lips. And I think this will become a trap for John McCain, should he become president.”
Back in 1988, liberals ridiculed Bush’s pledge as unrealistic and pandering to the right-wing. But to conservatives, Bush’s error was not his “no new taxes” pledge, but his failure to abide by it during budget negotiations two years later.
Here’s the transcript of Foreman’s “Keeping Them Honest” segment, that appeared at about 10:13pm ET during Monday’s Anderson Cooper 360:
ANDERSON COOPER: One pillar of modern conservatism is tax-cutting, or, at the very least, promising to. The first President Bush did, but he had a tough time sticking to it. Now Senator McCain is talking the same talk. We wanted to know, can voters reasonably expect him to walk the walk? “Keeping Them Honest" tonight, CNN's Tom Foreman.TOM FOREMAN: In the presidential horse race, it is an attractive and risky gamble, and John McCain is placing his bet.
CLIP OF JOHN MCCAIN FROM ABC’S THIS WEEK: No new taxes.
FOREMAN: But, "Keeping Them Honest," can he keep that promise? Some economists say not likely.
ROBERT GREENSTEIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES: The problems in the future are so large that it's pretty unthinkable we could close those deficits either by just cutting programs or just raising taxes. We're going to have to do both sooner or later.
FOREMAN: Among costs hammering the budget: the war, a half- trillion dollars so far, by some estimates; that economic stimulus plan, $168 billion; soaring entitlements for baby boomers; interest on the national debt. All that with no new taxes? Democrats say, get real.
PETER FENN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: That would take an act of magic, not an act of Congress. He cannot do it unless he does something very radical, like cut Social Security, cut Medicare. And he's not going to do that.
FOREMAN, OVER BLACK AND WHITE FOOTAGE OF MCCAIN ON THE SENATE FLOOR: Last year, McCain was attacked because he would not sign a pledge against higher taxes. And some conservatives are uncertain about his beliefs, even now, since McCain opposed the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. McCain says he did so because he wanted reductions in spending, too. He still thinks spending cuts should lead the way to a balanced budget, but now he also wants to make the Bush cuts permanent. Republicans like that.
RICH GALEN, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I not only think that it's possible to keep taxes low, but I think it's desirable. And, even in the face of a Democrat-controlled House and Senate, a president who is devoted to cutting unnecessary spending really does have a lot of tools in his tool kit.
FOREMAN: Still, 20 years ago, George H.W. Bush accepted his party's nomination with these words.
GEORGE H. W. BUSH, CLIP FROM 1988 CONVENTION: Read my lips: no new taxes.
FOREMAN: Read the record. He broke that promise. Now he's endorsing McCain, and Republicans hope, this time, they can keep their man honest, and he will keep his word. Tom Foreman, CNN, Washington.
—Rich Noyes is Research Director at the Media Research Center.





ROBERT GREENSTEIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER ON BUDGET AND POLICY PRIORITIES: The problems in the future are so large that it's pretty unthinkable we could close those deficits either by just cutting programs or just raising taxes. We're going to have to do both sooner or later.
PETER FENN, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: That would take an act of magic, not an act of Congress. He cannot do it unless he does something very radical, like cut Social Security, cut Medicare. And he's not going to do that.
RICH GALEN, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I not only think that it's possible to keep taxes low, but I think it's desirable. And, even in the face of a Democrat-controlled House and Senate, a president who is devoted to cutting unnecessary spending really does have a lot of tools in his tool kit.














Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I wish I was a politician
February 19, 2008 - 17:20 ET by mattmI wish I was a politician and was asked "will you sign a no new tax pledge?"
I would answer, no. I favor a new "Liberal tax." In addition to President Bush's suggestion that anyone who believes the government needs more money can send in any amount they wish, I would add additional taxes on movies, TV newscasts, daytime TV shows, abortion clinics, sex shops, bath houses, newspapers, etc. Anything that would hit liberal pocketbooks harder than those of normal people. ; )
I want to create a
February 19, 2008 - 17:40 ET by Dan The Man 2I want to create a voluntary additional tax for all those who think they are not taxed enough. Ill produce some tables and see what happens, Im sure there will be a groundswell of support. I love President Bush's remarks on taxes and will gave out the address of teh IRS.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
“the problems in the
February 19, 2008 - 17:48 ET by Free Thinker“the problems in the future are so large that it’s pretty unthinkable we could close those deficits either by just cutting programs or just raising taxes.”
I noticed the idea of cutting programs was just tossed aside. We have seen how lower taxes have increased tax revenues, and it is no secret that higher taxes do the opposite while slowing the economy. It is not about taxes, it is about power over peoples lives for these folks.
That's right. Thus starts
February 20, 2008 - 12:05 ET by dscottThat's right. Thus starts in ernest the MSM and libs campaign to convince the public that "how" we are spending our money "currently" is perfectly reasonable and without reservation. That is a false premise and we are not accepting it. Our job then is to expose that falsehood upon which rests the success of the Dem party bribing voters with programs.
ticking off some of the “costs hammering the budget: the war, a half-trillion dollars so far, by some estimates; that economic stimulus plan, $168 billion; soaring entitlements for baby boomers; interest on the national debt. All that with no new taxes?”
Let's just examin the falsehoods they listed.
http://conservablogs.com/publiusforum/2008/01/07/do-we-really-understand-democrats/
And I haven't even addressed the amount of money spend on unemployment benefits for 7.5 million people which is directly caused by over 12 million illegals taking their jobs! How many billions are we spending on that? How many billions are we spending on maintaining and building prisons keeping illegals in jail for crimes they committed here when they were not supposed to be here in the first place? Do the math, $50k a year conservatively by around 55,000+ illegals in our prisons? http://www.gao.gov/htext/d05646r.html That's $2,750,000,000 ($2.75 billion) a year based on 2005.
Bottom line is don't dare talk about a tax increase when your spending priorities are totally out of wack.
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
No new taxes?
February 19, 2008 - 17:52 ET by R D HelmHmm. Where have we heard that before?
I'm not, of course, mentioning any names here, 'cause it wouldn't be prudent.
How bout "no new
February 19, 2008 - 20:49 ET by GregEHow bout "no new spending?" Well, yea who am I foolin'.
But.............they aren't kings and dictators. This is America, but Americans sure act like they, the politicians, are so.
There's one pledge
February 19, 2008 - 20:53 ET by sarcasmoWe'll probably never see, even though, if anything, it's even more-needed than the tax-pledge...
JMR
If this is winning, I think I'd rather lose...
sarc,
February 19, 2008 - 22:19 ET by R D HelmIf we can just get the Fair Tax passed, that will at least take the "Imperial" out of the Imperial Federal Government.
Then they can only spend what they have, and if they try and raise the FT rate, even in a middle of the night session, everybody not locked in a basement somewhere will know about it within 24 hours.
GregE
February 19, 2008 - 22:15 ET by R D HelmI totally agree. Problem is, at the end of the day, we are talking about politicians. LOL.
And when you throw in the "gimme" constituency, well, what can you do?
MORONS !!!
February 19, 2008 - 18:23 ET by LionKingNo nation has every taxed itself into prosperity.
I think that says it all for liberals...they oppose prosperity.
It looks like increased
February 19, 2008 - 19:20 ET by Chris NormanIt looks like increased taxes are a big part of "the change" that so many people desire and look forward to...
CNN's Foreman
February 19, 2008 - 19:44 ET by d1carterTom Foreman is a caricature of an MSM journalist...
The answer is obvious
February 19, 2008 - 20:47 ET by c5thenThe problem is that the parties keep pushing forward candidates who will not solve the problems because they'd rather have the issues to beat their opponents with.
The answer is to eliminate not programs, but entire Cabinet Departments and agencies that are not specifically authorized by the Constitution. Next to eliminate the income tax that makes us all slaves to the Federal Government and repeal the 16th amendment. By eliminating the unnecessary and unconstitutional Departments and combining others (like eliminating Labor and combining some of it's tasks into Commerce) the Federal Budget could be cut in half. That means that a fair sales tax would only need to be about 15% with food and clothing being exempt.
Next we need to eliminate the Federal Reserve. Curently the US has to issue bonds to the FED that allows them to issue Federal Reserve Notes in the face ammount of the bonds. That means that the US Gov is paying interest to the FED for every dollar in circulation, but thier is only as many dollars in circulation as the "principle" amount. To pay the interest on the bonds when they come due, the Gov has to issue more bonds and the cycle begins again. The FED is nothing but an inflation machine.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.