Okay, I’m impressed. This is how you demolish the Democrats’ fiscal cliff narrative

Posted by: Phineas on December 24, 2012 at 2:38 pm

**Posted by Phineas

I mean, it’s an all too rare occurrence when a news anchor actually challenges the Democrat script, but when it’s done before a cheering audience, that makes it extra special:

“That’s all you want to do. That’s it. It’s your way or the highway. Raise the rates on the rich. No other way. Your way or the highway. That’s it. That’s where we are. Thank you, Senator.”

That’s how CNBC anchor Maria Bartiromo finished her interview with Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) last week as the two went back and forth over the fiscal cliff negotiations in Washington DC. It was the first time a Democrat has really been challenged over their lack of leadership in the negotiations.

Conventional wisdom (and therefore the dominant narrative in the media) focuses on Speaker John Boehner and House Republicans being intransigent and not meeting President Obama and the Democrats for a “balanced approach.” Bartiromo exploded that narrative by challenging Cardin on ANY alternative type of revenue stream that doesn’t include raising tax rates. Cardin would not agree to any of them, thus destroying the idea that Democrats are embracing the “balanced approach.”

“So how come you’re not moving forward? What’s the problem? Because the American people are so tired of this, and they are really tired of the lawmakers thinking that the American people are stupid. You can’t keep coming on the show every week saying the same thing: ‘It’s not a balanced approach.’”

“You’re talking about $1.2 trillion in revenue, but you’re not prepared to put anything on the table. People are not stupid!”

You can read the rest and watch the video at Breitbart. In the background you’ll see floor traders cheering Bartiromo on as she dismantles Cardin. Too bad the rest of the MSM won’t take her lead when confronting Reid, Durbin, Schumer, and the rest of that rapacious crew.

By the way, can someone explain to me how this time-serving tool, Cardin, beat Dan Bongino last month?

via RBPundit

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

22 Responses to “Okay, I’m impressed. This is how you demolish the Democrats’ fiscal cliff narrative”

Comments

  1. SteveP says:

    All I’ve heard is arguments over taxes.
    Is there any intention of addressing spending at all?

  2. Carlos says:

    “By the way, can someone explain to me how this time-serving tool, Cardin, beat Dan Bongino last month?”

    Easy. Contrary to what Bartiromo says, at least 50% of the voters in MD are stupid and, given where he’s from and the preponderance of statists and crooks that come from there, a much higher percentage than that, probably.

    ‘Course, I’m the one to be talking, since I’m from a state whose governors have been either Democrat or statist wannabees since the 1960s.

  3. Congress and the president have shown me the best and least upsetting strategy for approaching the fiscal cliff, namely so what? If they are not all that concerned about it why should I worry wrinkles in my brow? Obhammud threatens Boehner he will use the Inaugural and SOTU addresses to slander the Republicans. So what? He is going to do that anyway. Remember the shabby treatment of the Supreme Court at the last one?

  4. Carlos says:

    In a moment of uncanny and unusual-for-a-LSM-tool clarity Bartiromo nailed an obstructionist jackass to the wall, and he probably will never be dumb enough to ever again go on a talk show without checking to make sure the host toes the party line without question.

    He probably assumed that because of her network she would have him field at worst softball questions of the type Obhammed and Pelousy are so used to.

    CNBC should be proud of her for this. They’ll probably pink-slip her within a month or, at best, not renew her contract when it comes up again. How dare she roam off the reservation like that!!!???

  5. Zachriel says:

    phineas: This is how you demolish the Democrats’ fiscal cliff narrative

    Hmm. The Senator answered her question, saying the House Speaker is bottling up spending legislation. After that, she wouldn’t let him answer. Not sure how that is demolishing anything. Seems more like political fodder for like-minded people than an actual argument.

    What’s funny is they claim the markets are being held hostage, but then admit it’s been a good year for the markets.

  6. Great White Rat says:

    The Senator answered her question, saying the House Speaker is bottling up spending legislation.

    The question was, what are you willing to put on the table? The response was not an answer. Cardin had several opportunities to address other methods of raising revenue – closing loopholes in the tax code, for instance – but refused to consider any of them. Bartiromo’s summary of his position was succinct and accurate.

    Seems more like political fodder for like-minded people than an actual argument.

    If you’re taking about Cardin’s non-response, I’d agree. Blaming someone else for your problems is SOP for you leftists. Obama’s been doing it non-stop for four years now, so I suppose it’s only natural for the likes of Cardin and Zach to assume that finger-pointing (accurate or not) is a valid response to everything.

  7. Zachriel says:

    Great White Rat: Cardin had several opportunities to address other methods of raising revenue – closing loopholes in the tax code, for instance – but refused to consider any of them.

    Actually, it seemed he got cut off every time he tried to answer.

  8. Great White Rat says:

    Actually, it seemed he got cut off every time he tried to answer.

    When the question is, to cite one case, whether he’s willing to put a cap on charitable deductions on the table, and he begins his answer with “No”, there’s no point in letting him obfuscate the issue further. As we saw, once he gets past “No”, all he’s looking to do is filibuster and blame someone else for not giving him 100% of what he wants.

  9. Zachriel says:

    Great White Rat: When the question is, to cite one case, whether he’s willing to put a cap on charitable deductions on the table, and he begins his answer with “No”, there’s no point in letting him obfuscate the issue further.

    How is answering a yes or now question with a yes or no “obfuscating”? In any case, people generally tune in to hear what their legislators think, not the interviewer. But if it reinforces your beliefs, and gets you to say “Yippee!”, it may have some entertainment value.

  10. Kate says:

    The point is that the only idea that is palatable to the democrats is raising revenue by raising the rates on those who have higher incomes…this affects many small businesses. The actual closing of loopholes would affect so many that they are loathe to show their hand in that regard.

    As was stated before and will be again and again, revenue is not the problem. Spending is the problem. The democrats are perfectly happy to allow the sequestration that will go into effect if they do go over this fiscal cliff as it will in most cases affect mostly military spending cuts. Their pet programs are patently protected.

    I would love to have them put an across the board pay freeze for all federal employees if such an event happens since it is the federal government officials who can’t balance a budget to save their lives!

  11. Great White Rat says:

    But if it reinforces your beliefs, and gets you to say “Yippee!”, it may have some entertainment value.

    Now you’re confused again. That’s what YOU get to do when Cardin, or Obama, or any other socialist starts in on the predictable rant about how everyone else is to blame for the fiscal mess the nation is in. You’re whining because Bartiromo didn’t give Cardin a chance to recite the tired old blame-the-House talking points you’re so fond of. Too bad. The rest of us would rather hear some solid suggestions about how to avoid the impending fiscal cliff, and those were not coming from Cardin. Or any leftist, for that matter.

  12. Zachriel says:

    Great White Rat: You’re whining because Bartiromo didn’t give Cardin a chance to recite the tired old blame-the-House talking points you’re so fond of.

    No. The purpose of a journalistic interview is to elicit the views of the person being interviewed, not the interviewer. This is especially so when the person being interviewed is a legislator working on essential legislation for the people he represents. It is reasonable for the interviewer to try and get beyond the usual recitation of talking points, but not professional to put herself at the center of the story, and prevent the person from talking. What we have here is the equivalent of ‘pro wrestling’, which merely mimics match sport.

  13. Great White Rat says:

    The purpose of a journalistic interview is to elicit the views of the person being interviewed,

    And that was achieved. For example:

    Question: are you willing to put a cap on charitable deductions on the table?

    Cardin: No.

    At that point the views of the interviewee have been elicited. Question has been asked and answered. I know that’s an inconvenient fact and you’ll ignore it as usual, but it bears repeating: Cardin did make his views known.

    He didn’t say, “No, but…”. He didn’t say, “Here’s a way we might consider that…”. He didn’t say, “The problem with that approach is…”.

    He said “NO”. What part of that simple direct answer is too difficult for you to comprehend? I know you’re incapable of sticking to the subject, as you’ve demonstrated often here, but even you should be able to understand that when Cardin said no that he’s made his views known and it’s time to move on to the next question.

    If the question had been, “Senator, who would you like to blame for the inability to get a fiscal cliff deal done?” – then you could have had the anti-GOP filibuster you soagerly anticipated. Instead, Bartiromo, having (and I’ll type this v e r y s l o w l y so even Zach can understand it) gotten Cardin’s views on the question, moved on to the next one, and then accurately summarized his responses at the end.

  14. Carlos says:

    Zachriel: “This is especially so when the person being interviewed is a legislator working on essential legislation for the people he represents.”

    OK, so since he (Cardin) refuses to entertain any thought of cutting spending, and it is a SPENDING problem we have (not an “income” problem as Cardin, Reid, Schumer and the rest of the jackasses in the Senate insist), tell us how he not only is representing the best interests of the people, all the people, of Maryland, but (since he is a United States Senator) the interests of the people of the rest of the United States, too?

    Debt spending will catch up to the country soon enough, Zach. We are not trying to punish people, we are trying to cushion the coming catastrophe as soon as possible because the longer we wait to get our fiscal house in order, the harder and harsher the penalties for out-of-control and unconstitutional spending will be. It would have been so much easier to pay off an $11T debt than the $16T we have now, and it would be easier to pay off the $16T than the projected minimum $20T when our Spender-in-Chief leaves office, but it will never get paid off if spending continues at current levels, even without projected and built-in increases.

  15. Zachriel says:

    Carlos: OK, so since he (Cardin) refuses to entertain any thought of cutting spending, and it is a SPENDING problem we have (not an “income” problem as Cardin, Reid, Schumer and the rest of the jackasses in the Senate insist), tell us how he not only is representing the best interests of the people, all the people, of Maryland, but (since he is a United States Senator) the interests of the people of the rest of the United States, too?

    Most economists see the problem as both a revenue problem, due to historically low tax rates and the weak economy, and a spending problem, largely due to the aging population and medical inflation. Hence, many people are calling for a “balanced approach” meaning somewhat higher taxes, closing loopholes, broadening the tax base, as well as prudent cuts in spending and reductions in the growth of entitlements.

    Left unresolved, the deficits could impact America’s future prosperity, but there are a number of plausible solutions.

    In any case, the interview was just pro-wrestling for the political right.

  16. Great White Rat says:

    Hence, many people are calling for a “balanced approach” meaning somewhat higher taxes, closing loopholes, broadening the tax base, as well as prudent cuts in spending and reductions in the growth of entitlements.

    Those people are commonly known as “Republicans”, although a sizeable number of them think we can avoid the higher taxes by judicious modification of the tax code, and actually freeze (not just control the growth of) entitlements.

    Cardin and Obama want ONLY tax increases. They do not want to reduce spending or make any attempt to reign in runaway entitlement growth. After all, their base of support is the ignorant people who crow about their free “Obamaphones” with no thought about who (if anyone) is paying for them. Liberals would like nothing more than to get everyone totally dependent on the government for everything, since dependency means control and there’s nothing the leftists want more than complete control over everyone.

    You’ll also notice how Zach moves the goalposts whenever the facts aren’t convenient. He starts with this:

    The Senator answered her question,

    .

    But that wasn’t helpful to his argument, so he shifted to this:

    it seemed he got cut off every time he tried to answer.

    And now he defines an interview where there’s an honest attempt to pin a leftist down on their actual plans instead of another unlimited session of blaming and demonizing as “pro-wrestling for the political right”. You’d almost think that he doesn’t WANT anyone to know what the left’s plans are….

  17. Zachriel says:

    Great White Rat: The Senator answered her question,

    She cut him off saying he didn’t answer the question. He answered her question, but wasn’t allowed to give an explanation. Again, it’s just pro wrestling for the right.

  18. Zachriel says:

    Great White Rat: Cardin and Obama want ONLY tax increases.

    Obama has proposed spending cuts as part of his ‘balanced approach’. Republicans have refused to consider any increase in rates.

  19. Great White Rat says:

    Obama has proposed spending cuts as part of his ‘balanced approach’

    That is – and you force me to be blunt here – a lie.

    Zach and the rest of the left have a strange definition of a “spending cut”. In their warped minds, if they want to triple spending on a program and they settle for only doubling it, that is a “cut”. That’s the kind of “spending cut” King Putt is proposing. Sane people know that a true spending cut would mean spending less.

    Furthermore, the track record of liberals on keeping even those promises of ‘cuts’ is laughable. Time after time, liberals have promises ‘cuts’ later in exchange for tax increases now. In every single case, they’ve reneged once they got their hands on the revenue. There’s every reason to believe Obama is lying once again. This is a man who cares not one bit about how much he spends. He won’t even economize on such a small item as his myriad vacations – even having Michelle and the kids taking separate planes despite the extra million dollars or so that costs the taxpayer.

    Republicans have refused to consider any increase in rates.

    And now, finally, Zach admits that the issue isn’t revenue, it’s tax rates. Republicans have placed several proposals on the table to increase revenue. Those are unacceptable to the leftists because they don’t openly punish anyone with higher tax rates – so the left can’t crow about some victory in their class warfare strategy.

    In other words, to bring this back full circle, Zach is admitting finally that Bartiromo was absolutely correct, and he’s in the same camp as Cardin. Case closed.

  20. Zachriel says:

    Great White Rat: the left have a strange definition of a “spending cut”.

    Cuts are measured from a baseline, in other words, cuts measured from current law. At the very least you have to account for inflation and increased population.

    Great White Rat: admits that the issue isn’t revenue, it’s tax rates.

    Well, no. You had suggested Republicans have supported tax rate increases, which wasn’t accurate. In any case, it’s unlikely that closing loopholes will be sufficient to close the budget shortfall, even with spending cuts. Most likely, the solution will be “all of the above”; cuts to baseline spending, closing loopholes, raising marginal rates.