After NBC actually called out Democrats for holding up the coronavirus relief bill Monday morning, its sister network instead, went to absurd lengths to defend Democrats playing political games while families suffer from being forced out of work. On MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports, the host downplayed Senate Democrats playing politics, while even defending their actions as doing what was smart for their party.
A few minutes into the 1:00 p.m. Eastern hour, MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell moved on to spin for Senate Democrats holding up a nearly $2 trillion dollar coronavirus relief bill for Americans because, they argued, it contained a “slush fund.” Instead, Democrats wanted to add a lengthy liberal wishlist of unrelated policies to this aid package such as tax credits for solar energy companies. But MSNBC wasn’t about to criticize Dems politicizing an emergency.
To correspondent Garrett Haake, Mitchell whined that Republicans were simply trying to “embarrass” Democrats by calling them out for playing politics:
It is stalled in Congress. There is no vote scheduled on that. There are procedural votes that the Republican leader is threatening, which many people believe is to embarrass the Democrats, try to gain advantage, accuse the Democrats of holding it up, since he controls the floor, but the Democrats in reply are saying that those procedural votes are actually slowing down their ability to continue ongoing negotiations that are in play with the white house and Treasury Secretary Mnuchin.
She went on to ask Haake when this bill would be voted on. The correspondent touted the Democrats’ defense, that this was a corporate “bailout.”
"Democrats pointed largely to this $500 billion, large corporate, essentially a bailout provision in this bill that they think needs more oversight, that needs more strings attached to it, that can't just be handed out to companies by Mnuchin with little oversight and little transparency," he stated.
Right after this, Haake also did note Republicans’ frustrations that Democrats were trying to add unrelated things to the aid package.
Still, he went on to absurdly claim it was “politically safer” for Democrats to hold up this bill so they could get what they want, rather than actually try to provide aid to Americans quickly, after shutting down the economy:
But Democrats don't want to get stuck on a slippery slope towards a final vote on a bill that they don't agree with. They would rather have this battle now on ground that they control, if I can use a military metaphor here, then allow things to get closer to a final vote and then have this fight. It's politically safer, you could argue, to do this now, rather than when the final details are hammered out and you could have Republicans saying we need to do this right this second.
I think it’s safe to say that people who lost their jobs would disagree with Haake’s assessment.
Meanwhile Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was also playing politics, brazenly trying to stuff a lengthy liberal wishlist into her own coronavirus relief bill.
Read the relevant transcript below:
MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Reports
03/23/2020
1:07 p.m. EasternGARRETT HAAKE: And so far, it appears Democrats are not backing off their line and moving forward on this bill. The debate has centered over the question of why? Why are Democrats withholding their votes in this case? Democrats pointed largely to this $500 billion, large corporate, essentially a bailout provision in this bill that they think needs more oversight, that needs more strings attached to it, that can't just be handed out to companies by Mnuchin with little oversight and little transparency. Republicans, meanwhile, have been hammering back at Democrats for all of the additional elements Democrats are putting into this bill that are not related to the current crisis, arguing that things like tax credits for solar energy should be put off for another time and should not be part of this main bill.
But Republicans are saying, we are ready to vote, we are ready to move this forward. And right now, the math is such in the Senate that nobody even has 50 votes. Remember, five Republican senators are absent, either from having tested positive for COVID-19, in the case of Rand Paul, to self-isolating out of an abundance of caution. So getting to 50 is a challenge. Getting to 60, near impossible until there are some kind of deal. But we seem to be moving towards a vote while the markets are open, which Mitch Mcconnell laid out, he said would be -- the market's reaction will be the responsiblity of Democrats, if they refuse to vote in favor of just moving forward on this bill.
ANDREA MITCHELL: We should explain, they require 60 votes to pass this procedural bill.
HAAKE: That's right, this next procedural vote would take 60.
ANDREA MITCHELL: But there is nothing to go to the floor. That's what's so remarkable about that. That's why there is so much anger back and forth, because what Mitch Mcconnell is trying to do is have what's called a cloture vote when there is no bill.
HAAKE: Right, essentially moving forward with a shell, moving forward with an outline and saying we need to keep things moving, we'll fill in the blanks later. Chuck Schumer tried to ameliorate that concern a little bit in his remarks, saying look, I want to move as fast as you do on this. I will do everything within my power to make the process go faster, when there is a deal.
But Democrats don't want to get stuck on a slippery slope towards a final vote on a bill that they don't agree with. They would rather have this battle now on ground that they control, if I can use a military metaphor here, then allow things to get closer to a final vote and then have this fight. It's politically safer, you could argue, to do this now, rather than when the final details are hammered out and you could have Republicans saying we need to do this right this second.
