On Tuesday’s CNN New Day, reporters were eager to scold Republicans for daring to demand fiscally responsible disaster relief funding and fretted that such concerns would cause federal aid for Texas in the wake of Hurricane Harvey to become “mired” by congressional Republicans.
In the 7 a.m. ET hour, co-host Alisyn Camerota noted that President Trump was “saying things that are comforting Texans in terms of making promise they will get the relief....a big relief package for them.” CNN Political Analyst and Washington Post reporter Karoun Demirjian wrung her hands: “And the President will ask Congress for that, that’s a routine thing, but this has been a sticking point for Congress in the past, that everybody has this commitment to do something but then it gets mired in the traditional Republican internal debate of, ‘Do we do emergency funding or do we offset emergency funding to make sure we don’t upset the budget?’”
“What might be different this time is that it’s Texas, and Texas has a large Republican delegation. Many of them have voted against doing emergency funding in the past but may vote for it right now because it’s in their backyard,” she added.
Co-host Chris Cuomo then decided chime in, sneering: “It’s always a little different when it’s you, right? I mean, Cruz and Cornyn and Ryan were tough on the Sandy financing. Let’s see how Cruz is now when it’s his home state that he has to deliver for.”
During another panel discussion in the 8 a.m. ET hour, CNN Senior Political Analyst Ron Brownstein hammered away at the GOP with the same liberal talking points:
There are other issues looming around the bend though once the immediate danger is passed, and that go is going to be paying for the enormous price of reconstruction. As you recall, the vast majority of House and Senate Republicans, including most of the leaders from Texas, voted against the Sandy aid, arguing that it was filled with extraneous spending, which I think has been largely debunked, and demanding offsetting budget cuts for any new aid. Including Mick Mulvaney, he was the author of that, he’s now the head of the OMB.
In addition to preemptively blaming Republicans for any delay in disaster relief, Brownstein also made sure to blame the storm itself on every Democrat’s favorite boogeyman – climate change:
I think, you know, at some point there has to be a discussion of whether these sorts of events are becoming more common because of climate change. I mean, scientists are reluctant to attribute any individual storm to a changing climate, but in my CNN.com column today, I quote the former head of NOAA as saying, “Look, this is a preview of the future.” There is no doubt that climate change makes – because of – particularly because of warming the ocean waters and the Gulf waters – makes storms like this more common. Heavy rainfall in Texas events have become much more common there as well. And that is a discussion for around the bend and I think questions for this president to address at some point, once the immediate danger has passed.
As he did earlier, Cuomo again made sure to add in his two cents: “Well, and we see why so many states move towards enforcing the strictures of the accord, the Paris Accord, even without the federal acceptance of it. It does seem as though we have 100-year storms every year or two.”
Appearing on CNN’s Inside Politics on Monday, The New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza similarly seized on the climate change angle: “And then finally I think it's worth pointing out, you know, everyone is saying this is the storm of the century....And a lot of Democrats will be saying, you know, climate change is actually – this is the kind of flooding you would predict based on the climate change model.”
The discussions on New Day were brought to viewers by IBM, IZOD, and Liberty Mutual.
Here are transcripts of the August 29 exchanges:
7:27 AM ET
(...)
ALISYN CAMEROTA: Well, he’s certainly saying things that are comforting Texans in terms of making promise they will get the relief, that he’s talking to Congress and that Congress is like-minded and that they’ll pass, you know, a big relief package for them. I mean, who knows what will happen, but that’s what he’s saying. And he’s – I mean, Karoun, do you want to point that out? I was just going to say he’s going to leave in an hour from now, but what do you think? How do think Congress is going to respond to those comments?
KAROUN DEMIRJIAN [CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER, WASHINGTON POST]: Well, I mean, it is the President’s role at this point to say there will be stuff – there will be money there, there will be aid there. And the President will ask Congress for that, that’s a routine thing, but this has been a sticking point for Congress in the past, that everybody has this commitment to do something but then it gets mired in the traditional Republican internal debate of, “Do we do emergency funding or do we offset emergency funding to make sure we don’t upset the budget?”
What might be different this time is that it’s Texas, and Texas has a large Republican delegation. Many of them have voted against doing emergency funding in the past but may vote for it right now because it’s in their backyard. But if we get mired in this heading back into the congressional session – which is September, they have to pass a budget – if they get stuck in this, if this starts to be a free-for-all, it could actually upset the calendar of other things Trump wants to do.
Remember, he wanted to talk about tax reform this week, now we’re talking about this and we’re talking about the budget and it’s very important. So it could change the way the way that they are able to execute their agenda if they’re able to actually get to all those agenda points because we’re gonna be fighting about these money issues which are clearly vital. And we see the pictures from Houston, they’re not going to be going away any time soon as they recover, so it’s going to be a constant reminder of this being center stage.
CHRIS CUOMO: It’s always a little different when it’s you, right? I mean, Cruz and Cornyn and Ryan were tough on the Sandy financing. Let’s see how Cruz is now when it’s his home state that he has to deliver for.
(...)
8:24 AM ET
CAMEROTA: What are you expecting, Ron?
RON BROWNSTEIN [CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST]: Well, look, I think we have a two-stage, you know, kind of discussion that we’re going to be having here over the next several weeks. The first, is the immediate response of the federal government, and state and local officials to this incredible calamity and catastrophic storm. And so far, they are getting primarily good marks for the response and for the – as well as the public kind of pitching in, and really in an almost unprecedented way, with these makeshift flotillas.
There are other issues looming around the bend though once the immediate danger is passed, and that go is going to be paying for the enormous price of reconstruction. As you recall, the vast majority of House and Senate Republicans, including most of the leaders from Texas, voted against the Sandy aid, arguing that it was filled with extraneous spending, which I think has been largely debunked, and demanding offsetting budget cuts for any new aid. Including Mick Mulvaney, he was the author of that, he’s now the head of the OMB.
And then one step beyond that, Alisyn, I think, you know, at some point there has to be a discussion of whether these sorts of events are becoming more common because of climate change. I mean, scientists are reluctant to attribute any individual storm to a changing climate, but in my CNN.com column today, I quote the former head of NOAA as saying, “Look, this is a preview of the future.” There is no doubt that climate change makes – because of – particularly because of warming the ocean waters and the Gulf waters – makes storms like this more common. Heavy rainfall in Texas events have become much more common there as well. And that is a discussion for around the bend and I think questions for this president to address at some point, once the immediate danger has passed.
CUOMO: Well, and we see why so many states move towards enforcing the strictures of the accord, the Paris Accord, even without the federal acceptance of it. It does seem as though we have 100-year storms every year or two.
(...)
