AP Report Interrupts Two-Sentence Boehner Statement With Seven Grafs of Obama-Related Hype
Given the opportunity to directly relay the two sentences of House Speaker John Boehner's statement on the status of debt-ceiling and budget negotiations tonight, the Associated Press's Andrew Taylor and Jim Kuhnhenn, in their 9:29 p.m. report (saved here at my web host for future reference, fair use and discussion purposes) disgracefully cut the Speaker's statement off after its first sentence and inserted seven paragraphs designed to minimize its full impact, leaving readers unaware of Boehner's full statement with the impression that its second sentence was uttered sometime and somewhere else.
Boehner's full statement follows:
Statement by Speaker Boehner on Debt Limit Discussions
Washington (Jul 9)House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) released the following statement today regarding ongoing debt limit discussions with the White House:
"Despite good-faith efforts to find common ground, the White House will not pursue a bigger debt reduction agreement without tax hikes. I believe the best approach may be to focus on producing a smaller measure, based on the cuts identified in the Biden-led negotiations, that still meets our call for spending reforms and cuts greater than the amount of any debt limit increase."
Here is what Taylor and Kuhnhenn rudely interjected between Boehner's two sentences (bolds and numbered tags are mine):
The White House responded that Obama will continue to push to make as much progress on deficit reduction as possible.
Boehner's statement came a day before he and seven of the top House and Senate leaders were scheduled to meet at the White House in a negotiating session and lay out their remaining differences.
A deficit reduction deal is crucial to win Republican support for an increase in the nation's debt ceiling. The government's borrowing capacity is currently capped at $14.3 trillion and administration officials say it will go into default without action by Aug. 2.
Obama tried to build political support for an ambitious package of spending cuts and new tax revenue [1] that would reduce the debt by $4 trillion over 10 years. But from the moment he proposed it, Republicans said they would reject any tax increases and Democrats objected to spending cuts in some of their most prized benefit programs, including Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
A bipartisan group of lawmakers led by Vice President Joe Biden had already identified, but not signed off on, about $2 trillion in deficit reductions, most accomplished through spending cuts. [2]
But after holding a secret meeting with Boehner last weekend, Obama and his top aides said they believed an even bigger figure was attainable if both parties made politically painful, but potentially historic, choices. [3]
In the end, the pressure from both sides was pushing against Obama's bigger goal. [4]
Notes:
- [1] -- What's under discussion is not "new" tax "revenue," it's tax increases. As Senator John Kyl made clear earlier in the week, in a statement Reuters reporters tried to twist into openness to tax increases, Republicans are willing to look at sales of assets and user-fee adjustments to better reflect the underlying costs of services rendered as sources of one-time and ongoing "revenue" -- but not tax increases.
- [2] -- The phrase "mostly through spending cuts" gives readers the impression that the Biden package includes tax increases. It doesn't, as the second sentence in Mr. Boehner's statement indicates. But apparently Taylor and Kuhnhenn are hoping many readers won't get that far while they play stall-ball.
- [3] -- Isn't it great how "historic choices" always seem to involve tax increases enacted now with spending cuts to come later (except that the spending cuts rarely show up in material form)?
- [4] -- Yeah, Obama is the guy with the "bigger goal," while Boehner is just some narrow-minded rube who would prefer a bigger economy over a bigger government.
Because the AP reporters cut Boehner off, most readers will have every reason to believe that the second sentence of Mr. Boehner's statement was said separately from his official statement. It wasn't. "Clever," guys. The first sentence in isolation makes Boehner look inflexible, while the second makes him open to bipartisanship with Biden's spending-cut proposals. We can't have readers thinking Republicans will work towards an agreement, can we?
It doesn't seem at all unreasonable to expect two AP reporters to simply relay both parts of a two-sentence statement without interjecting the administration line. But apparently Taylor and Kuhnhenn are congenitally incapable of that. That's why the oft-used name Apparatchik Press so often applies to dispatches from the self-described, hopelessly conceited Essential Global News Network.
In the meantime, many readers will agree with the Thatcherite suggestion I make at my home blog: Don't go wobbly, Mr. Boehner.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
- Tom Blumer's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
Squeeker Boner needs a kick in his Anthony Wiener...
Submitted by bigdaddy on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 10:50pm.
...It is never a good negotiating strategy to cut your price in half before even starting...
Resign Crybaby!
Yep,
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 10:57pm.
Johns idea of the high road, is costing us fortunes.
Really?
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 11:00pm.
You like the $4 tril concept with tax increases better?
Personally, I like
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 11:22pm.
I think it was Pat Buchanan that was saying the House should vote to raise the debt ceiling, along with all the cuts they want, and not new taxes, and dare the Senate to reject it, or the 0 to veto it. Then, it's the democrats that "let the country default".
If Boehner is the answer, I clearly misunderstood the question
Submitted by Dave. on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 11:43pm.
Sure, right after the November election, they were all over voting to repeal Obamacare, but when it came time to actually put their money where their mouth is and simply defund the damn thing, they caved in like a $5 tent.
They have been caving ever since, at it appears the gutless wonders are on the verge of doing so again.
Either Obamunism is stopped cold now, or else.
There is no more time.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
You know Boehner is in trouble when . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 07/10/2011 - 11:47am.
. . . Eleanor Clift had a positive description of him on this weekend's McLaughlin Group.
I have a new theory that I
Submitted by Van Halen on Sat, 07/09/2011 - 11:59pm.
I have a new theory that I want to run by the fellow commentators here:
The JournOList media and the Left know Obama is toast come 2012 so they're figuring that if he's gotta go, then everyone else is going to be taken down too. To that end, this is the beginning of what you will see a rapidly worsening series of partisan attacks on All Things RightWing. The Left probably figure that if they wipe everyone out, then maybe they have a chance to rise again from the ashes.
I don't know guys
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 07/10/2011 - 12:04am.
It seems like everyone is reflexively disappointed in Boehner even though he has very little leverage and has to balance the effects of reports like this one from the AP.
We've all said, NO TAX HIKES! Obama's $4T "package" is dependent largely on (as James Pethokoulis from Reuters tweeted earlier today) a "major, unambiguous tax hike." So would you all be praising Boehner for supporting Obama's plan -and it will surely be described as "Obama's Deficit Reduction Plan"- including "major" tax hikes? Or a package that reduces the deficit by more than it raises the debt ceiling without increasing taxes, and takes any political advantage away from Obama?
Remember, Obama is banking on stirring his base by getting a tax hike on job creators while simultaneously wounding Boehner with the same move. He'll also win with the media and take away some of the sting from recent bad economic numbers. I'm glad Boehner's walked. He's basically denying Obama the political advantage and any political gain while holding firm to no tax increases. I think we should wait on the final deal before giving up on him and branding him the newest Benedict Arnold of the Tea Party.
Personally, I'd take what I can get that remains true to party values and then fix the structural problems in two years when Barry's on the campus speaking tour pushing his latest memoir: "The First Black President to be Denied a Second Term by Racist Conservatives, or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Predator Drone."
bkeyser - Excellent points!
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Sun, 07/10/2011 - 10:49am.
“How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Predator Drone." – That is clever… Well done! :o)
I agree we should not be so willing to “float test” Boehner at this time. Let’s see what the House does first. While it’s not a condition that appeals to me, the reality is that politics is art of getting things done… not what is possible but what is practical.
What is being asked of the Congress is less government spending and regulation… if those conditions are significantly cut in the long-term, that will be sufficient. But if the R’s can only get 60% of what they want this year that will also be OK – with the proviso that an additional 60% gets cut next year and more cuts in the following years – with no increases in discretionary spending except in the case of “approved war” or natural disaster.
- Grump :o)
BK....."IFF"
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 07/10/2011 - 10:54am.
(for those non math majors, that is the shorthand for IF AND ONLY IF).
IFF John Boehner makes the deal for $2 Trillion in real cuts (not fake accounting stuff) AND concludes the deal with a statement along the lines of "well, that's a good start, now let's turn our attention to Paul Ryan's most excellent road map for the future", I for one will be a happy camper.
IOW, $2 Trillion without any increased taxes is a GOOD START. Nothing more.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Looks like deal's off
Submitted by jon_torlin on Sun, 07/10/2011 - 11:02am.
Just saw on Fox News that the deficit-reduction deal is off. At least the $4 Trillion one because the dems are calling for tax hikes (big surprise).
deficit deal
Those spenders are addicts to spending. What is that, Chronic Spending Disorder or Syndrome or something?
From what I understand, it had to do with hiking the taxes on the rich.....again.
-Jon
J
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 07/10/2011 - 11:15am.
Ed Morrissey just backed up my assertions over at HotAir, including more from "...James Pethokoukis [who] published an e-mail he received from Capitol Hill describing the offer as “beyond bizarre”:
"Their fierce insistence on higher taxes is beyond bizarre. After months of demanding ‘clean’ increase to avert economic calamity (default), WH threatens economic calamity (default) unless they get economic calamity (trillions in tax hikes). No wonder these guys are governing over an economic calamity (9.2% & growth malaise), w/ an economic calamity on the horizon (debt explosion as mapped out in president’s budget). The bipartisan consensus on tax reform (broader base & lower rates) was championed by President’s fiscal commission, and yet now is being rebuked by the President. Lowering top rates that would help make America more competitive was too large a leap for a true class warrior."
For those that don't read click the link, the tax increase Obama wants is $1T; $300B more than the extension of the Bush-era tax rates that Obama just signed 8 months ago. Class warrior, indeed.
[Edit] Lori Montgomery at WaPo says the number is $2T in new taxes.
The Dems don't know what they want, BK
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 07/10/2011 - 11:19am.
Well, let me revise that.
The only thing they DO want is to hang the blame on the Republicans. They really don't care about the fiscal health of this country, as long as they can point the finger.
9.2% and rising....because I know the June jobs numbers will be revised down, the unemployment number will be revised up....and we'll be at 10% again by October 2011. Panic is setting in.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
More on the talks from Jennifer Rubin at WaPo
Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 07/10/2011 - 11:28am.
"The White House dished out the spin that suddenly the Tea Party crowd had nixed a deal. In reality, the White House had upped the ante on taxes. A Republican House aide told me that the White House “started to backpedal on entitlement reforms too.” He explained, “They [the White House] had started to go back on some of the Medicare and Medicaid reforms they had previously said they were ok with.” In other words, either the White House never intended to present a viable grand bargain, or, if Obama did, the left got to him."
It sounds more and more like Boehner had to walk. The White House is simply playing games. They're banking on collapse (no pun intented) and think this will win them the election. From IWF: "Obama is famous for presenting us with false choices: corporate jet owners or children; trillions of dollars in debt or economic apocalypse. The Chicken-Littles in the Obama administration are claiming that economy will come crashing down unless Congress authorizes a debt-ceiling increase before the March 31 May 16 July 22 August 2 doomsday."
Blonde - "Right on!"
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Sun, 07/10/2011 - 11:36am.
The dems only want power... and could care less about the country. And I’m sick and tired of these socialists saying, “What the people want…”
My new coffee-pot is smarter and more patriotic than the “Harry Reid’s” of the world. Why the socialists refuse to understand he reason “I am paying more for stuff is because “the rich” are getting less for selling it to me” is far beyond me. So stop with the “tax-the-rich” stuff already and start doing your duty to the country and your constituents… (Sure, like they’re really going to do that).
- Grump :o)
The Weasel Meister has it right.
Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 07/10/2011 - 7:29am.
President Genius defines spending as "not raising taxes."
Wow......
Submitted by jon_torlin on Sun, 07/10/2011 - 9:26am.
Wow....just plain wow......
George Orwell would be proud of the use of double speak or redefining the different words that used to mean one thing in the English language.
I wonder if some of these people avert their eyes when looking at themselves in the mirror.
Well, regardless if the AP took Boehner out of context or whatever was happening, I don't expect him to do any good at this point. This makes it easy to deal with the disappointment if or more accurately when he does cave to whatever he caves to. It also makes it interesting in case he DOESN'T cave and get that modicum of hope back.
Guess we shall see.
-Jon
Which causes me to wonder how the weazel zippers cheap shot
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/10/2011 - 6:43pm.
artists have been characterizing the substantial tax relief portion of the origninal stimulus package. Was it deducted from the 787bil price tag?
Jer
"---weasel zippers cheap shot artists"---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 07/10/2011 - 6:57pm.
as opposed to liberal, Democratic, and media cheap shot artists, Jer?
MD
You mean "they do it too", Matthew?
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/10/2011 - 7:43pm.
Thanks for the info. I'll make a note of it.
Jer
If I had meant, "they do it, too"---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 07/10/2011 - 7:56pm.
I probably would have said just that.
Wouldn't want to steal your thunder, there, Jer.
MD
The Antiamerican
Submitted by eaglewingz08 on Sun, 07/10/2011 - 6:05pm.
The Antiamerican Propagandists (AP) can't even get Obama's false flag deficit reduction (sic) plan right. It was not four trillion dollars over ten years, it was over 12 years. Moreover the democraps are saying that they didn't even have agreement on 2.4 trillion dollars in cuts, which the article touts. This is so dishonest but expected.