Neo-Hooverism Infects CBS?
James Fallows liked Bob Schieffer but noticed that he, too, has fallen prey to the neo-Hooverite bug:
2) Notwithstanding general praise for Schieffer, he like all the other debate moderators seemed to be unduly interested in how either of the candidates is going to “balance the budget.”
NEITHER OF THEM IS GOING TO BALANCE THE BUDGET — nor should they be mainly concerned with trying, right at the moment. We’re in the middle of a potential economic collapse. One of the lessons Herbert Hoover inadvertently taught is that you shouldn’t try to tighten up on public spending during a huge downturn. For details, see the works of JM Keynes, passim.
In semi-defense of Schieffer, arguably he was simply giving both candidates an opportunity to say that in light of present circumstances they were going to revise budget promises they’d made when the macroeconomic situation looked more favorable. But neither candidate really did that. Obama stuck to policy guns that are inconsistent with an emphasis on deficit reduction, but got defensive about it and insisting that vaguely specified cuts elsewhere would make up the gap rather than simply arguing that an emphasis on deficit reduction would be inappropriate. McCain continued to make fiscal policy promises that imply gargantuan cuts in programs outside the favored circle of defense, veterans, and, I guess, autism.
26 Responses to “Neo-Hooverism Infects CBS?”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 16th, 2008 at 8:57 am
Actually, it seems to me that a couple times Obama floated the idea that investing in things like alternative energy and education now would help balance the budget in the future, and he has long made a similar sort of claim about his middle class tax cuts. So within the limits of current political reality, I thought he was trying to introduce a little sense into the discussion.
October 16th, 2008 at 9:04 am
‘Joe the plumber’ says Obama’s tax plan sounds ’socialistic’
The difference between Obama and McCain on taxable income over $250,000 is…wait for it…3%, yet one of the plans is socialist and the other isn’t. Seriously?
At at time when the Bush Administration is nationalizing banks, the inanity of the propaganda the right is spewing is comical.
October 16th, 2008 at 9:04 am
Sorry, I’m more than annoyed at this praise of Schieffer. Yes, at first glance he appeared to do a good job, but look a little closer.
1) In 7 of 8 questions he gave McCain the last word. On the lone exception Obama had to ask for time to respond, and Shieffer said “be brief”.
2) He used the false equivalency construct more than once. “Both your plans will cost over $200B according to third party analyses.” Literally true, but Obama’s would be just over $200B and McCain’s would run into the trillions.
“Both of you have said harsh things.” Yes, Obama said McCain is “erratic” and that his ads “lie”. McCain, OTOH, has run ads suggesting Obama would kill infants, “pals around” with terrorists, cares more about Hollywood than about America, uses “the one” to allude to the reference in Left Behind of the Anti-Christ, and wants to teach sex to 5 year olds. Frankly, when you compare the two, Obama’s charges of “erratic” and “lies” are not only far tamer, but clearly accurate based on McCain’s claims.
Look, Schieffer is a long time friend of the Bush family and he’s made countless pro-McCain statements over the years. It’s clear he was trying to help his buddy while at the same time trying to appear moderate.
October 16th, 2008 at 9:11 am
The false equivalency was annoying, but I actually thought giving McCain the last word over and over again ultimately hurt him, and saved Obama from potentially muddying his clear victories in so many exchanges.
October 16th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Anonny – I had a similar reaction to that question (about negative ads). But then I began thinking that perhaps I should be applauding Schieffer. By introducing the question about negative campaigning (as well as the question about the VPs), he provided an opportunity for discussion on two issues considered by many to be undermining McCain’s campaign. And in many people’s minds, these topics are unwinnable by McCain – no matter what McCain says, Obama was going to come out better, b/c, obviously among Dems but also among many independents and moderate Republicans, Obama has so clearly picked a better running mate and has run his campaign with more integrity.
While I thought McCain did sound more lucid in the first 1/2 hour than he had in the past debates, these questions were a turning point. He got visibly angry during the attack ad discussion, and his subsequent performance became much less coherent (there was literally one point at about the one-hour mark where he went off on a vague tangent for about 30 seconds that was utterly and completely unintelligible).
Thanks Bob!
October 16th, 2008 at 9:34 am
In semi-defense of Schieffer…
He’s a doddering, grinning old fool who thinks that getting shot down in a fighter plane automatically qualifies someone for higher office. He’s an idiot.
October 16th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Actually, my initial reaction was that Scheiffer was by far the best debate moderator of the presidential debates. Yeah, all these cricisms are valid and in retrospect it’s possible that I liked Scheiffer because Obama was doing so well, but I still feel like he wasn’t at all bad and got the candidates to have a much more interesting debate than the previous two.
The ‘balance the budget’ question was the only time in the night when I really thought Obama did badly, and it was only because he ducked the right answer and not because of anything McCain said. This was a great opportunity to show both that Obama understands the economy and is a pragmatist that is able to balance competing goals. Yeah, I wish that Obama had taken a few more, and more pointed, jabs at McCain, but this was the only time when I thought he was clearly wrong.
October 16th, 2008 at 9:50 am
for anyone feeling warm and fuzzy about Bob Schieffer start with this http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh101304.shtml and http://dailyhowler.com/dh101204.shtml ways back in campaign 2004.
Asking about negative campaigning with all the false equivalency he could muster was supposed to be a gimme to McCain. McCain raising Ayers would have seemed desperate but answering a question from Bob would not.
October 16th, 2008 at 10:09 am
When trillions of dollars of assets have been destroyed, either by real bombs, or by banking bombs, you don’t lay a bunch of people off from work. You do the reverse, and try to get everybody producing. Unlike the aftermath of war, this situation only requires us to rebuild one city — New Orleans — and the rest of our productive push will be pure gravy.
October 16th, 2008 at 10:13 am
The debate moderators have all felt like Bush I lost reelection because of the Read My Lips promise. So, in their minds, the candidates need to walk back their plans in order to avoid a similar fate.
This is stupid because:
1. Suddenly they’d be campaigning on nothing at all (see: McCain, John).
2. If Obama did this, he’d be attacked as a flip-flopper–by the same Schieffers and Brokaws that elicited the revision (fuckers!).
3. Government spending is the only thing that can lead us out of depression.
October 16th, 2008 at 11:27 am
I agree with MosBen and Matt,
First, neither candidate described or discussed the proposed stimulus packages. This debate was supposed to be about the economy. huh?
Second, I was hoping that Obama would frame the question in 2 parts: part 1, getting out of the current mess with stimulus + fiscal + mortgage. This clearly will imbalance the budget in the short haul. That’s what stimulus is about. but he could also point out that SOME of his general plans can be used as stimulus. That is, if they provide immediate benefits for jobs or spending, they should be in the stimulus package. Double benefits.
Part 2 would have been to explain the longer-term plans. Since it is impossible to predict the effects of the stimulus (indeed, more might be needed), part 2 must be presented as priorities rather than roadmaps or promises. He can emphasize that virtually all of his spending plans should have positive impact on the economy, but the time-course is variable.
October 16th, 2008 at 11:45 am
In semi-defense of Schieffer, arguably he was simply giving both candidates an opportunity to say that in light of present circumstances they were going to revise budget promises they’d made when the macroeconomic situation looked more favorable.
No, I’m sorry. If that was the point, the question would have been framed in a more open ended way. But instead it prejudged the appropriate answer as obviously one in favor of cutting. Schieffer said:
Aren’t you both ignoring reality? Won’t some of the programs you are proposing have to be trimmed, postponed, even eliminated?
Give us some specifics on what you’re going to cut back.
Imagine if Schieffer had asked:
Aren’t you both ignoring reality? Won’t some of the budget-balancing proposals you have made need to be postponed of altered during this recession
Give us some specifics on what additional stimulatory spending programs and public investment projects you are going to put forward.
Now that kind of question would also amount to pre-judging the issue. But that pre-judgment is obvious in the second case. Shouldn’t it be obvious in the first case as well?
October 16th, 2008 at 11:57 am
I think the problem is that if you actually argue the correct position, that you shouldn’t cut spending at this time, it’s a issue where you lose the argument by being right. It is the conventional wisdom among the media and dare I say public, that spending needs to be cut. If Obama actually says what is correct, not only will it strike many people as wrong, but will open him up to a whole line of “insert liberal here” attacks about Democrats and big government and spending. At this stage, its just better to BS around it and pretend like you think the premise is accurate.
http://thesebastards.blogspot.com/
October 16th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
At least Wes Clark wasn’t there to make Bob Schieffer cry for 2 weeks in a row.
Speaking of budget freezes, is Joe the Plumber going to build those new 45 nuke plants for free?
October 16th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
comment to matt’s #13.
Although it’s conventional political wisdom that spending needs to be cut, etc, its also conventional that, when there is a downturn there needs to be a “stimulus package”. Can’t politicians explain what “stimulus package” means? that it means, in the short-haul, expanding the deficit?
October 16th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
“McCain continued to make fiscal policy promises that imply gargantuan cuts in programs outside the favored circle of defense, veterans, and, I guess, autism.”
That’s not fair. He specifically mentioned defense cuts too.
March 11th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 13th, 2009 at 5:31 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 22nd, 2009 at 11:26 am
buy viagra online
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:10 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
buy cheap viagra
April 8th, 2009 at 4:10 am
thanks !! very helpful post!
viagra