Posts tagged "Face The Nation"
Marsha Blackburn defends blocking equal pay law: GOP ‘led the fight for women’s equality’ (via Raw Story )

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) asserted over the weekend that the Republican Party was the party of “women’s equality” days after Senate Republicans blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act. In a party line Senate vote last week, Republicans refused to…


(via On CBS’s Face The Nation, Marco Rubio Accuses Obama Of ‘Emboldening The Taliban’)

WASHINGTON — Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) on Sunday charged President Barack Obama with “emboldening the Taliban,” citing details from a new book by former Defense Secretary Robert Gates that harshly criticizes the president’s leadership in the war in Afghanistan.

"I don’t think we can ignore what’s in that book, and I think for many of us it confirms our worst fears," Rubio said on CBS’ "Face the Nation." "And that is that this is an administration full of people that either have the wrong convictions or, in the case of former Secretary Clinton, lack the courage of her convictions."

Rubio pointed to parts of Gates’ book that suggest Obama didn’t feel that the war in Afghanistan was his war, and that his decision to pull out troops was political.

"You saw that reflected in the decision that [Obama] made," Rubio continued. "At the same time that he announced the surge, he also announced an exit date and strategy, thereby emboldening the Taliban to believe they could wait us out.”

The Florida senator, whose name has been floated as a 2016 presidential contender, said Obama’s actions on Afghanistan have had international repercussions.

"Our allies see us as unreliable, and our enemies feel emboldened," Rubio said. "I think that this confirms our worst fears, that this is an administration that lacks a strategic foreign policy and, in fact, is largely driven by politics and tactics."

(via Tom Coburn On Disaster Relief: Status Quo Means People ‘Don’t Have To Be Responsible’ For State)

WASHINGTON — Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) reiterated on Sunday that he won’t support additional disaster relief funding without spending cuts elsewhere — even after tornadoes ripped apart his own state last week.

"We’ve created kind of a predicate, that you don’t have to be responsible for what goes on in your state," he said on CBS’ "Face the Nation" while discussing the success Oklahoma has had in using state and private funds after the tornadoes.

Coburn said he doesn’t oppose any federal money going toward the state, however.

"Big storms like [Hurricane] Sandy, or like this tornado — there’s certain things that we can’t do that we need the federal government to do," he said.

The Oklahoma senator has been consistently opposed to disaster funding without offsets, but some expected that to change in the wake of the devastation to his state. But Coburn’s office quickly confirmed after the tornado that he would not be supporting disaster aid without offsetting the spending.

"That’s always been his position [to offset disaster aid]," Coburn spokesman John Hart said Monday in a statement. "He supported offsets to the bill funding the OKC bombing recovery effort."

On Thursday, Coburn responded to critics of his decision by saying they simply want to increase disaster funding so they can give it to their home states.

"It’s just typical Washington B.S.," Coburn said during an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “There’s $11.6 billion sitting in a bank account waiting to help people in Oklahoma … It’s a crass political game, because I was being asked these questions before we even pulled the dead people out of the rubble.”

He criticized the current system again on Sunday, saying that the way damage is calculated should be changed instead.

"It disproportionately hurts the more populous states the way we do it, the economic indicator, the economic damage indicator, the way it’s calculated," he said on "Face the Nation." "So a large state like New Jersey or New York is disadvantaged under the system that we have today. Then, we ought to have priorities about how we fund it, instead of borrowing the money. And then we ought to make sure the money is actually for the emergency at hand, not for four or five years later, and not allow bills to be loaded up with things that actually have nothing to do with the emergency at hand."

Appearing on CBS’ Face the Nation this morning, Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ) enthusiastically called for a government shut down:

SALMON: I was here during the government shutdown in 1995. It was a divided government. we had a Democrat [sic] President of the United States. We had a Republican Congress. And I believe that that government shutdown actually gave us the impetus, as we went forward, to push toward some real serious compromise. I think it drove Bill Clinton in a different direction, a very bipartisan direction. In fact, we passed welfare reform for the first time ever, and we cut the welfare ranks in the last decade and a half by over 50%. These are good things. We also balanced the budget for the first time in 40 years in 1997, 1998, 1999. And when I left we had an over $230 billion surplus. This was with a Democrat [sic] president, A Republican —

SCHIEFFER: You think that’s a good idea?

SALMON: Yes, I do. I really do. I think it’s about time!

Watch it:

Salmon’s theory, that the government shutdown somehow led to balanced budgets during President Clinton’s second term, was floated by Newt Gingrich in 2011, and it was no more true then than it is now.

Gingrich claimed that the shutdown led to the misleadingly named Balanced Budget Act of 1997, but the law was so laden down with conservative pet projects that it actually increased the budget deficit.

H/T: Ian Milliser at Think Progress Economy

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has not hesitated to voice his distaste towards U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, who may be nominated to replace Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. On Face the Nation Sunday morning, McCain went even further than simply opposing Rice’s nomination and said that, “until we find out all the information” on the Benghazi consulate attacks, he would not support any Secretary of State nominee.

McCain at first said it “might be a beginning” if Rice could come on the program to explain her position. But when pressed by host Bob Schieffer, the Arizona senator dug in and refused to support any nominee “under the present circumstances”:

SCHIEFFER: Until then, you will remain opposed to her nomination?

MCCAIN: Under the present circumstances, until we find out all the information as to what happened, I don’t think you would want to support any nominee right now. Because this is very very serious and it has even larger implications than the deaths of 4 Americans. It really goes to the heart of this whole light foot print policy that this administration is pursuing.

h/t: Aviva Shen at Think Progress

(via On CBS’s Face The Nation, GOP Senator Lindsey Graham Promises To Obstruct Obama Appointments Based On Non-Scandal)

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) implied he would block anyone President Obama appointed to lead the Department of State — especially current U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice — if they were at all involved with the handling of the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya. Speaking on CBS’ Face the Nation, Graham called the consulate “a death trap for months” and suggested he would prevent anyone involved in the Administration’s response to the attack from taking the top job at State:

GRAHAM: I do reserve unto myself and other members of congress the ability to say no when justified. I cannot imagine promoting anybody associated with Benghazi at this point. …

SCHIEFFER: Well, I mean, would you try to lead a move to block her [Ambassador Rice] from getting the nomination if in fact she is nominated?

GRAHAM: I’m not entertaining promoting anybody that I think was involved with Benghazi debacle.

While it’s certainly true that Benghazi was a terrible tragedy, there’s simply no evidence that it was the sort of massive, disqualifying scandal that Graham says it is. Detailed, exhaustive reporting on the issue has shown that there was no “smoking gun” of a coverup nor any massive failure to respond to the attack with proportionate force. This wealth of evidence has led former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, no Democratic partisan, to say that the massive overreaction from people like Graham is overblown and that “it’s probably better to let the relevant bodies do their work.”

Before the nation even learned the full extent of an attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya, Republicans raced to politicize this tragedy. GOP presidential candidate Romney released a much maligned — and entirely discredited — statement claiming President Obama “sympathize[d] with those who waged the attacks.” A month later, Romney received an embarrassing live fact check during the second presidential debate after he falsely claimed that the president did not label the attack an “act of terror” the day after it occurred.

On CBS’ Face the Nation, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) took this effort to politicize the attacks to a new level, claiming it was “either cover-up or the worst kind of incompetence”, worse even than the scandal that forced President Nixon to resign:

MCCAIN: Also, by the way, he said he immediately ordered action to be taken, no action was taken over seven hours. Now we find out the Secretary of Defense decided not to take any action. You know what, somebody the other day said to me that this is as bad as Watergate. Well, nobody died in Watergate. But this is either a massive cover-up or an incompetence that is not acceptable service to the American people.

Similar statements were made by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich on other shows, all focused on the Defense Department’s supposed inaction. 

The new GOP claims of cover-up are part of a long-line of attempts to label the shifting narrative as a policy failure. These latest claims build on a Fox News ‘exclusive’ that the CIA was denied a request to aid in countering the assault, while watching the attack in “real-time.” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said on Thursday that intelligence on the ground during the assault in Benghazi was not clear enough to warrant sending U.S. forces potentially into harms way.

Yet this new line of attack is unlikely to prove any more grounded in reality than previous ones. Indeed, even former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice tried to hit the brakes on the idea that the Obama Administration reacted improperly to the attack, telling Fox News earlier this week that “it’s probably better to let the relevant bodies do their work” rather than “jump to conclusions about what might have happened here.”

h/t: Hayes Brown at Think Progress Security

(via David Edwards at The Raw Story: On CBS’s Face The Nation, Clay Aiken confronts Tony Perkins: “You’ll be ‘ashamed’ for opposing LGBT rights” | The Raw Story)

Gay country music star Clay Aiken on Sunday told the leader of a Christian think tank that he would eventually be “ashamed” over his opposition to rights for LGBT Americans.

During a discussion about President Obama’s support of same sex marriage, Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins explained that “civil rights are rooted in natural law: Americans just don’t see same sex marriage as being natural.”

“When you look at [the ban on] interracial marriage, that was wrong,” Perkins admitted. “There was no reason to be opposed to that because you had two people who met the definition of marriage between a man and a woman. And that’s consistent with natural law, which our civil rights are based on. When you look at same sex marriage, that’s counter to natural law.”

Sitting directly next to Perkins on CBS’s Face the NationAmerican Idol runner-up Clay Aiken, a Southern Baptist who announced he was gay after having his first child in 2008, confronted the Family Research Council president.

“Between the time of 2003 and today, we’ve seen — as we’ve seen with gay marriage polling — we’ve seen minds changing,” Aiken explained. “We’ve seen people become more open and understanding of homosexuality.”

Five years ago, just off a bout from cancer, Bob Schieffer was set to retire from CBS’s “Face the Nation.” That never stuck, and now he’s doubling his workload.

Starting Sunday, the public affairs program expands to an hour. Vice President Joe Biden, whom Schieffer interviewed Thursday in Milwaukee, is the featured guest. Republican presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul are also booked.

With a presidential campaign under way, it’s an attention-getting time for the Sunday morning shows. The landscape changed already this year when George Stephanopoulos returned to the helm of ABC’s “This Week” in January.

Shortly after Schieffer started as host two decades ago, he said his competitor, the late Tim Russert of “Meet the Press,” went to his NBC bosses to urge that the show be expanded to an hour. Give me three months, Russert said, and if the ratings don’t improve we’ll go back to a half-hour.

They never looked back, and Russert dominated Sunday mornings until his death in 2008.

"Tim was the best of the best," Schieffer said. "But the fact of the matter is what propelled them to No. 1 is they went to an hour and they were the first to do that. When they did that, it left us in the dust."

Schieffer repeatedly nagged his bosses to follow suit. He made the same speech when Jeff Fager and David Rhodes took over last year, not expecting much. When they gave the go-ahead, Schieffer said, “I nearly fainted.”

Ratings and election news figured in the timing. “Meet the Press,” now with David Gregory, averaged 3.3 million viewers during the first three months of the year. “Face the Nation” was a close second with 3.09 million, the Nielsen company said. “This Week” had 2.53 million and “Fox News Sunday” averaged 1.15 million. “Face the Nation” is the only broadcast to see its ratings improve over last year.

Betsy Fischer, “Meet the Press” executive producer, said she’s all for more Sunday morning TV time.

"When we went to an hour 20 years ago, I remember the big advantage was that it gave us much more flexibility in programming the show," Fischer said. "I suspect it will be beneficial to CBS in that respect as well."

h/t:  St. Louis Post-Dispatch, via AP


The Sunday morning political talk shows have long played a key role in American political discourse, providing a venue for balanced discussion about key political topics. But in 2011 at least, they were heavily skewed to one political party over the other. According to a new analysis of shows like Meet the Press from Roll Call, Republican lawmakers appeared nearly twice as often as Democratic ones last year, and held a smaller advantage in previous years:

In 2009 and 2010, Republican Members held a small advantage over Democratic Members in appearances on these programs, getting 52 percent of the invites in both years. In both years, CBS had more Democrats as guests than Republicans by a narrow margin; in the same period, Fox News had more Republican guests by a wider margin.

But in 2011, the GOP lawmakers captured 64 percent of the Congressional appearances on the five shows that Roll Call tracks, and every network featured more Republican lawmakers than Democrats. Of 330 Congressional appearances tallied by Roll Call last year, 210 went to Republicans and only 120 went to Democrats — fewer if you subtract the eight appearances made by Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut Independent who caucuses with Democrats.

Certainly, some imbalance could be expected given that Republicans control the House and have a presidential primary contest, but the disparity could arguably be too great to explain this way. Michael Shanahan, assistant director of the George Washington University School of Media and Public Affairs, offered another explanation: “Democrats aren’t all that interesting.” In other words, producers find that Democrats provide less entertainment value. Either way, it means that viewers will get disproportional exposure to one world view.

h/t: Alex Seitz-Wald at Think Progress

Continuing his crusade against the courts, Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich railed against judges “imposing secularism” on the country on this morning’s Face The Nation. Arguing that “activist judges” who make disagreeable decisions should be held accountable before Congress, he told Bob Schieffer that he would send a U.S. Marshal or Capitol Police officer to arrest judges if that’s what it took to reign them in, and then encourage impeachment:

SCHIEFFER: One of the things you say is that if you don’t like what a court has done, that Congress should subpoena the judge and bring him before Congress and hold a Congressional hearing… how would you enforce that? Would you send the Capitol Police down to arrest him?

GINGRICH: Sure. If you had to. Or you’d instruct the Justice Department to send a U.S. Marshal.

Newt the Grinch = moron.

H/T: Zach Ford at ThinkProgress Justice

With its Sunday morning political talk show “Face the Nation” doing well in the ratings entering an election year, anchor Bob Schieffer said Sunday the show will match its rivals by expanding to an hour in April.

Both “Meet the Press” on NBC and “This Week” on ABC already air for an hour each week, but Schieffer’s show lasts 30 minutes.

"You made it possible," Schieffer told viewers at the end of Sunday’s show. "We don’t plan to change a thing, no bells and whistles. We’ll just keep sitting the key newsmakers down, turning on the lights and asking them questions and then we’ll bring in the experts from in and outside CBS News for analysis."

Schieffer spent many years in third place in the ratings. But personnel changes have hurt his competitors: “Meet the Press” is no longer dominant with David Gregory as it was with the late Tim Russert, and Christiane Amanpour replaced George Stephanopoulos on “This Week.”

"Meet the Press" still leads this season among all viewers, but in the key news demo of viewers aged 25-to-54, "Face the Nation" is ahead. The Dec. 4 episode of the broadcast had 14 percent more viewers than the same week a year earlier.

Today on Face The Nation, GOP presidential hopeful Herman Cain claimed that Planned Parenthood wants to “kill black babies” and is part of an organized effort to commit “genocide” against the black community:

BOB SCHIEFFER: Okay. I want to ask you, since we’re on the subject of abortion, it was at one point back there when the question of Planned Parenthood came up and you said that it was not Planned Parenthood, it was really planned genocide. Because you said Planned Parenthood was trying to put all these centers into the Black communities because they wanted to kill Black babies–

CAIN (overlapping): Yes.

SCHIEFFER: –before they were born. You still stand by that?

CAIN: I still stand by that.

SCHIEFFER: Do you have any proof that that was the objective of Planned Parenthood?

CAIN: If people go back and look at the history and look at Margaret Sanger’s own words, that’s exactly where that came from. Look– look up the history. So if you go back and look up the history– secondly, look at where most of them were built. Seventy-five percent of those facilities were built in the Black community.

Both of Cain’s proof points are demonstrably false.

Cain’s statement about the location of Planned Parenthood clinics is wildly inaccuate. According to a study by the Guttmacher Institute from January, “Fewer than one in 10 abortion clinics are located in predominantly African-American neighborhoods, or those in which the majority of residents are black.”

Politifact previously evaluated the Cain’s claim that Planned Parenthood was created to “kill black babies” and deemed it “a ridiculous, cynical play of the race card.”

In 2004 and 2006 Cain led a radical group that produced radio advertisements accusing Democrats of wanting to kill “black babies.” Cain himself provided the voiceovers for some of the ads.