"Big" Tax Cut Yields Little Cut; Reagan-Hater to Take NY Times Top Spot; Rather: I’m a Martyr for Truth; Lamb’s Contrarian Question
1) After months of describing Bush’s tax cut as
"big," "enormous" or "massive," on Monday
night both CBS and NBC informed viewers they shouldn’t expect to get
much relief anytime soon. CBS’s Dan Rather, however, still cited
Bush’s "big tax cut." But NBC’s Lisa Myers pointed how
"that really big tax cut you’ve been promised may be a long time
coming."
2) ABC’s Good Morning America brought Janet Reno aboard
to discuss her possible gubernatorial run in Florida. Charles Gibson
failed to take advantage of the opportunity to quiz her about any one of
her questionable decisions about Clinton fundraising scandals or the
pardons as he looked forward to the "intriguing political
possibility" offered by her candidacy.
3) The New York Times has named a Reagan-hater as its top
editor. Howell Raines once charged that "Reagan couldn't tie his
shoelaces if his life depended on it" and complained that
"reporting on President Reagan's success in making life harder for
citizens who were not born rich, white, and healthy -- saddened me."
During a TV interview he whined: "The Reagan years oppressed
me..." [See item below for a clarification about the
"shoelaces" comment]
4) Dan Rather sees himself as a martyr for telling the
truth about Watergate and Vietnam. Rejecting any responsibility for being
seen as liberal, Rather told Geraldo Rivera the liberal bias charge is
made by those who "subscribe to the idea either you report the news
the way we want you to report it, or we’re gonna tag some...negative
sign on you."
5) Cubans drive 1959 cars through a capital city in
shambles, but it has nothing to do with its communist command economy.
It’s all the fault of the United States. ABC’s Elizabeth Vargas
insisted: "U.S. sanctions have devastated Cuba’s economy."
6) Interviewing Boston Globe reporter John Farrell about
his new biography of Tip O’Neill, C-SPAN’s Brian Lamb posed a question
never dared broached on network news: "Why is it you’re labeled as
good when you take other people’s tax money and then pass it on to
somebody who doesn’t have it?"
Correction: In the table of contents for the
May 21 CyberAlert the last name of actor Kelsey Grammer was misspelled,
though it was correctly spelled, as it is here, in the subsequent article.
1
Now they
tell us. After months of worrying about the awful impact of Bush’s
"big," "enormous" or "massive" tax cut, on
Monday night both CBS and NBC informed viewers they shouldn’t expect to
get much relief anytime soon since the tax cut is phased in over 11 years.
Nonetheless, CBS’s Dan Rather cited Bush’s "big tax cut" and
Bob Schieffer described it as "one of the biggest tax cuts
ever." (ABC’s World News Tonight on Monday didn’t mention the
impending tax cut.)
Referring to how the Senate was expected to
pass a tax cut bill later Monday night, on the NBC Nightly News Lisa Myers
informed viewers: "This means that most workers will see less money
taken out of their paychecks starting in late July, but that really big
tax cut you’ve been promised may be a long time coming."
Promised by the networks which adopted the
liberal spin about a "big" tax cut.
Myers proceeded to explain how this year only
the lowest income tax rate will be fully cut, leading to a $300 reduction
for singles and $600 for couples, the marriage penalty relief won’t
begin to be phased in until 2004 and the estate tax will not be eliminated
for over ten years.
Over on the May 21 CBS Evening News anchor Dan
Rather intoned: "President Bush has argued that one reason Congress
should give quick approval to his big tax cut plan is to help Americans
pay for higher priced gasoline. The Senate is expected to approve the tax
cut tonight. Final congressional passage could come this week. So, does
this mean more money soon in your wallet? CBS’s Bob Schieffer on Capitol
Hill has ‘The Real Deal.’"
Schieffer began: "At $1.3 trillion
Republicans are right to call this one of the biggest tax cuts ever, but
even they admit it may be a while before we feel the full effect. Just
listen to the Senate’s Republican leader."
Trent Lott: "One of things I think’s wrong
with its current structure is that te rate cuts, for instance, are pushed
too far down the line."
Schieffer made the same points as Myers as he
noted that while everyone will benefit from the cut this year in the
lowest rate, income tax rates will only be reduced by one percentage point
next year and will not be fully implemented until 2007.
2
Rooting
for Reno. Spurred by her comment over the weekend that she might run for
Governor of Florida, ABC’s Good Morning America brought former Attorney
General Janet Reno aboard Monday morning to quiz her on her intentions.
Though she avoided such interviews during her tenure in office, ABC’s
Charles Gibson failed to take advantage of the opportunity presented to
quiz her about any one of her questionable decisions about Clinton
fundraising scandals or his pardons.
The closest he came was a question about how
she would "carry a lot of baggage" over Elian Gonzalez, Waco and
Tim McVeigh, but Gibson soon displayed his fascination: "You
certainly do raise an intriguing political possibility of a Reno-Bush race
if you decide to go."
MRC analyst Jessica Anderson took down
Gibson’s questions to Reno on the May 21 broadcast:
-- Gibson: "You've certainly raised
something of a hornet's nest with this political talk,...Are you running
or not?"
Reno: "As I said, I'm going to explore
it."
Gibson: "So this is a trial balloon?"
-- Gibson: "Well, but I'm curious why you
would raise the issue of possibly running when you're not yet ready to
announce that you are or that you're not. That certainly sounds like a
trial balloon, you want to see how people are going to react to the
possibility."
Reno: "You know what happened, Charlie? A
newspaper reporter asked me was I considering running, and I was
considering running, and I, not known for being-"
Gibson: "Reticent?"
Reno: "No, I'm not known for stating
something that's not true and I said yes, and from all that has come
this."
Gibson: "When you left Washington to head
down there, had you any thought of doing this?"
-- Gibson: "So what changed your mind?
What made you think, 'Well, maybe I ought to run'?"
-- Gibson: "If you ran and were the
Democratic nominee and if Jeb Bush runs for re-election, why would you be
a better governor than he would?"
Reno: "Well, I have some ideas on that, but
one of the things I want to do is move very carefully and review
everything that is at issue and see just what has been done and what needs
to be done to restore what I think are important steps that this state has
taken."
Gibson: "Would you carry a lot of baggage,
General Reno, if you ran for governor? The Elian case, of course, comes to
mind, and that had such an effect on the state of Florida. Waco happened
under your watch -- indeed the McVeigh case happened on your watch. Would
those all be issues that might be used and might Janet Reno become the
issue and her stewardship of the Justice Department rather than Jeb Bush's
leadership of the state?"
-- Gibson: "Well, you certainly do
raise an intriguing political possibility of a Reno-Bush race if you
decide to go. We look forward to talking to you."
3
Reagan-hater
to take over the New York Times. Howell Raines, the man named Monday
afternoon to become Executive Editor in September, charged in a 1993 book
that former President "Reagan couldn't tie his shoelaces if his life
depended on it." Raines, who is now the paper’s Editorial Page
Editor and who was the White House reporter during most of the Reagan
years, complained in Fly Fishing Through the Midlife Crisis that
"reporting on President Reagan's success in making life harder for
citizens who were not born rich, white, and healthy -- saddened me."
During a November 17, 1993 interview about his book on Charlie Rose’s
PBS show, he whined: "The Reagan years oppressed me because of the
callousness and the greed and the hard-hearted attitude toward people who
have very little in this society." [See item below for a
clarification about the "shoelaces" comment]
The announcement of his promotion to succeed
Joseph Lelyveld in the newspaper’s top editorial slot was made Monday
afternoon by Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr.
The June 1994 MediaWatch caught up with the
1993 book by Raines. Here’s a reprint of that article:
Howell Raines, Editorial Page Editor for The New York Times, has
generated a bit of publicity for editorials critical of the Clinton
administration's ethics and decision-making process. But a new book by
Raines reveals where his sympathies lie. In Fly Fishing Through the
Midlife Crisis, the former national political correspondent, who headed
the Washington bureau from 1988 through 1992, fails to criticize the
policies of any liberal, but he has plenty to say about Republicans:
-- "Then one day in the summer of 1981 I found myself at the L.L.
Bean store in Freeport, Maine. I was a correspondent in the White House in
those days, and my work -- which consisted of reporting on President
Reagan's success in making life harder for citizens who were not born
rich, white, and healthy -- saddened me."
-- "In 1981, shortly before the inauguration of Ronald Reagan, my
family and I arrived in Washington. I was thirty-eight. I attributed any
twinges of unhappiness I felt in those days to bad timing and the cycles
of politics. My parents raised me to admire generosity and to feel pity. I
had arrived in our nation's capital during a historic ascendancy of greed
and hard-heartedness."
-- "I was taken aback by the news that Alan Simpson, the
Republican Senator from Wyoming, was a fly fisherman. So much for the
ennobling influence of the sport. During Bush's term, Simpson established
himself as the meanest man in the Senate. True, his hatefulness had a kind
of Dickensian grandeur. But there was no way you could follow his rantings
about women, the environment and civil rights and still believe that fly
fishing in the mighty temple of the Rockies is guaranteed to purify the
soul."
END Reprint of MediaWatch article
To get more context for his blast at Reagan
for not being able to tie his own shoelaces, I went back to the book. The
line came at the end of a paragraph on page 84 in which Raines recounted a
fishing trip he took in the 1980s with some buddies to Big Hunting Creek
near Thurmont, Maryland, which reminded them of Jimmy Carter’s years
fishing in the area:
"We’re only about a mile from Camp David.
The Fish and Wildlife Boys kept the stream lousy with big brood fish from
the hatcheries when he was up here. I knew a guy who used to slip in and
give every big trout in the stream a sore lip whenever he heard Carter was
coming. Of course, I liked Carter. Charlie Fox and Ben Schley taught him a
lot about fishing, and he ties a good fly. Reagan couldn't tie his
shoelaces if his life depended on it."
[Clarification,
November 2003: It has come to our attention that while the
sentence, "Reagan couldn’t tie his shoelaces if his life depended
on it,” appeared on page 84 of the book by Raines, it came in the midst
of a multi-paragraph quote in a chapter in which he favorably recited the
comments on things great and small (during a fishing venture to Hunting
Creek near Thurmont, Maryland), from his companion on the trip, Dick
Blalock. The other quotes attributed in the book to Raines are accurate
and reflect his personal views.
The paragraph in full from which the quote came:
"'See that pool?' said Dick. 'That was Jimmy Carter's favorite pool
when he was President We’re only about a mile from Camp David. The Fish
and Wildlife Boys kept the stream lousy with big brood fish from the
hatcheries when he was up here. I knew a guy who used to slip in and give
every big trout in the stream a sore lip whenever he heard Carter was
coming. Of course, I liked Carter. Charlie Fox and Ben Schley taught him a
lot about fishing, and he ties a good fly. Reagan couldn't tie his
shoelaces if his life depended on it.'"
We regret the confusion.]
Digging back into the Notable Quotables
archive, I came across two other noteworthy comments which reflect his
liberal persuasion:
-- Dissing the Washington Times: "I
don’t take The Washington Times seriously as a journalistic entity, so I
view with suspicion almost anything that they do." -- Then-New York
Times Washington Bureau Chief Raines, quoted in the August 1, 1989
Washington Post.
-- Pushing Hillary Care by discrediting one of
its opponents: "The American Medical Association used the specter of
‘socialized medicine’ to defeat Harry S. Truman’s plan for national
health insurance in 1945. The same demagoguery still works, but that does
not change the agreed facts...while Americans who can afford it get the
best care in the world, the current system makes little sense in terms of
economic competitiveness or social equity." -- June 12, 1994 column
by Raines.
Jim Romenesko's MediaNews has posted the text
of the Sulzberger memo to the staff announcing the promotion of Raines. An
excerpt of Sulzberger’s praise for Raines:
....What to say about Howell? Well, most of you know him as our
esteemed fire-breathing, take-no-prisoners editorial page editor. But his
years in the newsroom -- both here and abroad -- and his years as a
reporter and editor for such other newspapers as the St. Pete Times and
the Atlanta Constitution, have resulted in a man with great journalistic
heft and breadth.
Howell will also be the first executive editor of The New York Times
whose roots include working at one of our Company's regional newspapers --
in his case the Tuscaloosa News in Alabama. They report he was a damn fine
City Hall reporter and showed promise.
Howell has the journalistic skills and integrity as well as the
leadership and managerial ability to build on the remarkable
accomplishments of Joe Lelyveld. But this is not a time to wax eloquently
on Joe. That time will come, but not until September, when this transition
will actually take place....
END Excerpt
To read the entire Sulzberger memo, go to: http://www.poynter.org/medianews/memos.htm
For the New York Times story on the
succession, go to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/21/business/21CND-TIMES.html
For the official New York Times bio of Raines,
go to: http://www.nytco.com/company/ex.rain.html
4
Dan
Rather accepts none of the responsibility for why he’s seen as a liberal
advocate. In interview Monday night with CNBC’s Geraldo Rivera he
claimed that charge is made by those who "subscribe to the idea
either you report the news the way we want you to report it, or we’re
gonna tag some, what we think negative sign on you."
Six days after he insisted to FNC’s Bill
O’Reilly that Bill Clinton is "an honest man....I think at core
he’s an honest person....I think you can be an honest person and lie
about any number of things," Rather turned up on Rivera’s CNBC show
in another stop to plug his new book, The American Dream: Stories from the
Heart of Our Nation.
For more about Rather’s comments to FNC’s
O’Reilly, refer back to the May 15 CyberAlert Extra and May 17
CyberAlert:
http://archive.mrc.org/news/cyberalert/2001/cyb20010515_extra.asp
http://archive.mrc.org/news/cyberalert/2001/cyb20010517.asp#5
MRC analyst Brad Wilmouth took down this
exchange from the May 21 Rivera Live in which Rather portrayed himself as
a martyr for telling the truth about Watergate and Vietnam:
Rivera: "What I can’t figure out is why
you rub the right so wrong. What is it about you that generates such
ferocious criticism from one side of the American political
spectrum?"
Rather: "Well, I’m not sure I know the
answer to that, Geraldo, and I ask myself from time to time, but I think
part of it is, you know, let’s face it, I’ve been really lucky, and
God has smiled on me, that I’ve been at or near the center of some great
stories and controversial stories. You can’t cover the civil rights
movement in the early sixties, the assassination of President Kennedy, the
Vietnam War, the resignation of the only President we’ve ever had to
resign, one who resigned as an unindicted co-conspirator in a widespread
criminal conspiracy. You just can’t handle that kind of hot lead and not
have some people get mad at you. The old saying ‘It goes with the
territory.’ There have been times in my career when what other people
perceive to be the Left has been angry. I didn’t get along with Lyndon
Johnson all the time during his presidency, but you know, I wouldn’t
trade it for anything, and whenever somebody takes off on me, I usually
try to stop and say, ‘Well, is the criticism valid or not?’ A lot of
times it isn’t. I think the tag, you know, somehow or another, ‘he’s
a bomb-throwing Bolshevik from the left side’ that’s attached to me,
is put there by people who, they subscribe to the idea either you report
the news the way we want you to report it, or we’re gonna tag some, what
we think negative sign on you. There are people in the world that way,
that, you know, part of growing up is to recognize not everybody is going
to love you, and believe me, I recognize that."
He’s got that last part correct.
5
Cubans
drive 1959 cars through a capital city in shambles, but it has nothing to
do with its communist command economy. It’s all the fault of the United
States, as if no other nation trades with Cuba. At least that was the spin
passed on by ABC News on Saturday night in a story about how the Cuban
regime has decided to restore historic buildings in Havana in order to
attract foreign tourists.
World News Tonight/Saturday anchor Elizabeth Vargas
set up the May 19 report: "President Bush has said he will not lift
sanctions against Cuba and will continue to isolate the Castro government.
U.S. sanctions have devastated Cuba’s economy, but on assignment there
ABC’s Jeffrey Kofman also found some recent signs of revival and
renovation."
Recounting the restoration efforts, Kofman
re-enforced the U.S. is at fault theme: "That this legacy has
survived at all is one of the great ironies of the 40-year-old U.S.
embargo on trade with Cuba. There simpy hasn’t been enough money to
repair or replace these magnificent buildings."
The U.S. did not have a trade embargo against other
communist nations yet their economies hardly thrived.
6
An
outside the network TV prism box question from C-SPAN’s Brian Lamb.
Interviewing Boston Globe reporter John Farrell about his new biography of
former House Speaker Tip O’Neill, Lamb posed a question never dared
broached on network news: "Why is it you’re labeled as good when
you take other people’s tax money and then pass it on to somebody who
doesn’t have it?"
New MRC intern Lindsay Welter transcribed this
exchange on the May 20 Booknotes between C-SPAN founder Lamb and Farrell
about Farrell’s book, Tip O’Neill and the Democratic Century:
Lamb: "Let me stumble through a scenario
here. Tip O’Neill was known in your book as a great humanitarian and
interested in little people. What is it about a politician, how do you,
how do you define a politician as being good if they take other peoples’
money and pass it onto somebody else and why doesn’t everyone do that? I
mean, it’s the old dichotomy here. If you’re a conservative and you
don’t believe in making it easier for people to get, you know transfer
payments, why is it you’re labeled as good when you take other
people’s tax money and then pass it on to somebody who doesn’t have it
and why doesn’t everybody do that?"
Farrell replied: "I think that, I guess I
reveal a little ideological bias. I really believe that what Roosevelt did
was revolutionary and necessary. That he probably did save capitalism and
that the United States in the 19, in the gilded era and in the 1920s would
not have been the nation is it today if we just let the markets operate. I
think that there are two great organizing principles, there’s economics
but then there’s also politics. It’s the way we solve problems. It’s
not just, you know, let’s get a covered wagon and go out across the
plains, let’s get together in a wagon train and go out across the
plains. Let’s not just build a barn, let’s get together and raise a
barn. So the common purpose I think that he, that Roosevelt represented
with the New Deal was essential I think that you know, obviously he was
the domineering figure in American politics in the 20th century because of
that. And I think that Tip was, form what we just heard, citing those
social statistics, was very proud of what he had done to create a middle
class.
"That being said, in the 1970s, the
Democrats had run out of stream and their answer to everything was, tax
and spend, tax, tax, spend, spend. There’s unemployment, let’s create
CETA, you know, a make work jobs program and I think that Reaganism was
absolutely a necessary correction. I think that part of the great
fascination I had in writing those chapters was the fact that you had a
revival of the individualism and the entrepreneurial spirit that the
country desperately needed in the 1980s. And the question, everything was
up for grabs, I mean the question was that the whole country had to come
together again and say ok, ‘who are we?,’ ‘what do we believe
in?,’ ‘how much of Roosevelt do we keep, how much do we throw
away?,’ and that’s what I think is such a great story between Tip and
Reagan."
While it’s surprising to hear a Boston Globe
reporter say "Reaganism was absolutely a necessary correction,"
most of Farrell’s colleagues in the journalism profession are as blindly
stuck to liberalism as O’Neill ever was, which explains why they
continue to equate federal spending with caring.