Inconvenient Truths

I missed Eric Cantor’s 60 Minute interview, but as Steve Benen describes it, it must have been pretty creepy.

It led to this exchange:

Stahl: But you know, your idol, as I’ve read anyway, was Ronald Reagan. And he compromised.

Cantor: He never compromised his principles.

Stahl: Well, he raised taxes and it was one of his principles not to raise taxes.

Cantor: Well, he — he also cut taxes.

Stahl: But he did compromise —

Cantor: Well I —

At that point, Cantor’s press secretary, off camera, interrupted the interview, yelling that Stahl was lying when she said Reagan raised taxes. As Stahl told “60 Minutes” viewers, “There seemed to be some difficulty accepting the fact that even though Ronald Reagan cut taxes, he also pushed through several tax increases, including one in 1982 during a recession.”

Benen goes on to (one more time) document the many ways Reagan raised taxes. Reagan was behind the largest single tax increase in American history, in fact.

Meanwhile — having run through every other not-Mittens candidate except Huntsman, the Iowa Repubicans now appear to be surging for Rick Santorum. Public Policy Polling shows a three-way tie among Paul, Mittens and Santorum. Very creepy. See also Nate Silver.

But the Iowa Caucus is tomorrow, so soon we can be done with it and go on to the New Hampshire primary on January 10, the South Carolina primary on January 21, and the Florida primary on January 31. And I think by then if Mittens hasn’t begun to build a lead, then maybe we really will have a brokered convention. And that could get very messy. But no point speculating about that for a few weeks yet.

14 thoughts on “Inconvenient Truths

  1. Maybe Ronald Minimus couldn’t remember raising taxes, and assclowns like Cantor choose not to remember that he did

    “…the Iowa Repubicans now appear to be surging for Rick Santorum.”

    How appropriate would it be if Santorum pulled-off a ‘come from behind’ victory?

  2. The interview was intended to rehabilitate Cantor’s image, which is interesting. He’s not Speaker of the House. Yet. As I watched this slimy teabagger evade questions related to his obstructionism, I decided the interview was meaningless – until it was interrupted from off-camera. There was something disparate about the press secretary shouting from the sidelines. Was the question something that the mouthpiece for the spokesman of the Tea Party dared not be spoken aloud?

    What happened was that Cantor did not have to answer. This may have been the goal – to protect Cantor from telling the truth or telling a lie by diverting the interview when the questions wee not just ‘inconvenient’ – they were critically hazardous. How I wish that some democratic strategists were smart enough to recognize WHERE to hit the Tea Party this year. They just stood up and waved where the fatal flaw is. HELLO! The clip of RR on tax inequality is out there in the public domain. I dont think Connie will rise from the dead, change parties

  3. Damn Computer.

    Take two. Concluding sentence.

    I don’t think President Ronnie will rise from the dead, change parties and renounce the Tea Party but the next best thing is the statement he made, (There are several.)

    “Would you rather reduce deficits and interest rates by raising revenue from those who are not now paying their fair share, or would you rather accept larger budget deficits, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment? And I think I know your answer.” Ronald Reagan

  4. Also too – Krugman speaks!

    You read this, and you can definitely see him standing in a powerful wind with his back to an abyss, holding a staff, and wearing flowing robes, doing his impression of a Prophet of old trying to impress the people that they have been worshiping at the altar of a false God.
    Alas, though the Republicans have ears, they just won’t listen. And those ears are attached to heads that are about as empty as their souls, and about as useful as mammaries on a male bovine.

  5. The bulk of the millions spent on political campaigns ends up in the media. Is that why this endless political patter (usually meaningless) and the endless days, even years political campaigns are filling our airwaves?

    Running political ads for at least a year prior to an election may be very lucrative for the media, but the ‘information’ they impart is next to none. One way to end this farce is to require the media to run ads, gratis. We, after all, own the airwaves, don’t we? Or did the SC ‘sell’ them to the media when they ruled on Citizens United. I wouldn’t doubt it.

  6. I seriously doubt that profit-making media will bite the hand that feeds them to the extent that they will expose the facts behind the ads that are paying their bonuses.

  7. Also, Doug, big ups for putting forth a winning, factual strategy for Dems. Bigger ups if you can get them to use it.

  8. I want to add big ups to Doug, too. There is so much damage the Dems could inflict on the Republican party if they would use the ammo Repubs have handed to them on a silver platter.

    Fox and the frenzies have managed to fling so much baseless crap out there, few folks seem to be able to tell fact from fantasy anymore. IMO the Democratic Party needs to pump some bucks into mass education. Don’t settle for talking heads–SHOW why Trickle-down economics can’t work. SHOW why the “Job Creators” won’t increase production when fewer people can afford to buy products. SHOW why privatization of public services increases costs. And so forth.

    Trouble is, how does one get through to these folks? I’ve been trying, but so far it’s like howling at the wind.

  9. Doug, is looking for writers and bloggers–sorry all fame and glory and no money– to write about politics and/or whatever. Might want to check it out. Could be a good place for you to do some “WHERE to hit the tea party” blogging.

  10. Cund-I agree with you about Krugman. It’s fun to imagine him reprising Charlton Heston’s role as Moses in “the Ten Commandments.”

  11. Lynn – One of the most interesting developments, though local, that I have read. The question is whether there will be an appeal from the highest court in Montana to the federal court.

Comments are closed.