>

Source:
The Majority Leader: Rep. Eric Cantor
60 Minutes, January 1, 2012 7:40 http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57348499/the-majority-leader-rep-eric-cantor/

Category: Politics, Video

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

16 Responses to “60 Minutes: Majority Leader: Rep. Eric Cantor”

  1. mwiedorn says:

    Mr. Cantor would do well to actually look up the meaning of the word “compromise” and while at it “cooperation”. Great example in the piece about Reagan, who though a true conservative would actually compromise when in the best interest of the country.

    Despite Mr. Cantor’s claim, he does not act in the best interest of the country…sad but true

  2. n1djs says:

    Since when is driving the country to 15 Trillion in debt in the best interest of the country? Keep up the fight Mr Cantor, before there’s nothing left to fight for….

  3. Rick Caird says:

    This is exactly why I quit watching 60 minutes decades ago. Leslie Stahl was not interviewing Eric Cantor; she was pushing her agenda on him and echoing Obama’s spending plans.

    A perfect example is came when Stahl claimed Reagan raised taxes. Reagan did agree to tax increases in exchange for $260 billion in spending cuts. However, the cuts were unspecified and the Democrats reneged on that promise and ended up, not with $0 in spending cuts, but rather substantial spending increases. Leslie Stahl knew that, but slid right over the Regan compromise vs the Democrats non compromise.

    I am quite sure that if Cantor had agreed to tax increases in exchange for unspecified spending cuts, exactly the same thing would have happened. There would have been hand shakes back slaps all around and increased spending. Congress loves to talk about decreased spending, but they rarely actually do that. They have to be forced into reductions. That will happen at some point because we now have a national deficit that exceeds GDP and that is the magic point described by Reinhart and Rogoff.

    Look, Cantor was elected on reduced government and reduced spending. He recruited candidates who won on exactly the same platform. It is instructive to see Obama continue to demonize those who disagree with him, but when he demonizes the Cantors, he is demonizing those who elected Cantor and the other people who also advocate smaller, cheaper government.

    ~~~

    BR: What do you mean “claimed” ? After lowered the income tax rates, Reagan did indeed raise income taxes. And, Reagan raised lots of other taxes. These are simple facts you are having trouble with.

    You are comparing as equals FACTS (tax increases signed into law by RR) with future activity (will BHO stick to an agreement about spending cuts).

    What you are essentially admitting to is confirmation bias — you do not like hearing facts you don’t like, so you stop watching sources of information you dislike or disagree with. Hence, you seek out only

  4. Rick Caird says:

    Barry,

    Stahl referenced 1982 and the tax increase Reagan agreed to in exchange for spending cuts that never happened. I believe that was Tip O’Neil who made the deal which was never honored. The point I made was that Reagan was stiffed and Cantor agreed to tax increases in exchange for specific spending cuts rather than some unspecified future cuts. It was Obama who scotched that deal, not Cantor. It was also the House who wanted the 1 year extension on the Payroll tax cuts. It was Reid and Obama who only wanted two months, but Obama is blaming the Republicans for that.

    It is true, I do not trust anything Obama says. He creates strawmen and claims his opponents hold positions they do not hold. Joe Wilson was right. Remember, too, what he did to SCOTUS during the State of Union address over Citizens United. It is a trick that Obama has mastered: give a speech and unfairly attack someone in the room whom you have invited to attend. Cantor has also been on the receiving end of this technique as you can see in the Stahl piece.

    Second, 60 minutes has made more than its share of political hit pieces. Don Hewitt admitted he edited the Gennifer Flowers interview to help Clinton in New Hampshire in 1992. Then we had the Dan Rather’s “fake but accurate” TANG papers in 2004, just in time for the elections. There have been other examples of hit pieces not related to politics. For example, the Jeep story claiming Jeep’s were too dangerous to drive. Except 60 minutes did not tell you they put the Jeep through 450 maneuvers in order to get 8 roll overs. Consider, too, the border crossing memo claiming a trucking company was allowed to cross the Mexican border without being checked. Except, like the TANG memo, it was forged. That story was also “too good to verify”. I don’t see how you can claim that is “confirmation bias”. 60 Minutes has earned my disdain. Leslie Stahl has just confirmed it still operates in support of their political favorites.

  5. Frilton Miedman says:

    The fact that his press secretary stopped the interview and wouldn’t allow Cantor to respond to the Reagan tax increases sums Cantor and the rest of the Koch puppets in full.

    It’s a fact, Reagan backpedaled and raised taxes twelve times once it became obvious his original tax scheme was failing, and even then the debt increased until Clinton increased taxes.

    Where Cantor constantly invokes the Reagan name to rationalize his stance on taxes, it’s only fair to ask him about the facts, there is NOTHING biased in asking the factual question on Reagan’s real tax policy vs this imaginary Reagan we all hear about…no more biased than asking Sara Palin what news she reads, or her thought on foreign policy.

    I thank Couric for being first to enlighten the public on what an idiot Palin is, as I thank Leslie Stahl for letting us see what a puppet Cantor is, that’s the media’s job.

    Cantor probably doesn’t speak a public word that isn’t approved by the Koch brothers.

    He meets Dave Koch regularly behind closed doors, yet refuses to interact directly with his own constituents.

    He recently announced he’d publicly address the topic of wealth/wage disparity, but when the Wharton business school refused to close the audience to business students and faculty alone, he cancelled.

    The words “treason”, “bribery” and “insurrection” were placed in the Constitution for a reason.

  6. jd351 says:

    Mr Caird, Its apparent you just got schooled!!!!! Keep believing in your myth.

  7. mightydude says:

    Cantor is a worm. He and his fellow Republicans are trying to sabotage Obama. Same tactic, basically, they used on Jimmy Carter. It worked that time, but it might not this time around.

  8. mightydude says:

    One more thing: the press secretary interrupting the interview is a fiasco and never should have happened.

  9. Sechel says:

    It’s really quite simple, Democrats and Republicans are fighting for political control, power and a vision of the future with an eye toward 2012 elections. Make no mistake this war is being fought by both sides using all available weapons including a p.r. battle.

    The Democrats in Congress and the President are attempting to tar the Republicans as rich, right wing, mean spirited and with no plan other than to frustrate the Democratic agenda. The Republicans attempt to paint the Democrats as socialists , reckless spenders and anti-business.

    To stay in power the Democrats need to succeed and the Republicans need them to fail.
    ———–
    There is another story though, that Washington has changed and it’s not a recent occurrence. Democrats and Republicans no longer mingle, go to restaurants, socialize, etc. Ed Koch has opined on this, he blames some of it on a Washington where reps are constantly going back to their districts and lo longer have the luxury of socializing as much. The other aspect is that fighting has always occurred and is institutionalized into the system; We’ve long had recess appointments, filibuster etc

    Bottom line it’s best to take some of the rhetoric from Republican and Democrat as just that rhetoric and not buy into the arguments so easily. If you do, your head will just spin.

  10. mikderby says:

    Watching this whole mess from a distance (Canada) – it seems absurd to believe that the stalemates can get to this level. While our system is different (note – I didn’t use the term “better”) – the ability of the Prime Minister and his cabinet to make choices – admittedly without the “checks and balances” that exist in the US prevent some of these tough choices (increase taxes and/or reduce spending) from becoming logjams.

    I’m not suggesting that the US adopt a wholesale change to their constitution- perhaps only to the way it is interpreted. 200+ years is a long time for no real change to the way in which the country is governed. Since when did government have to be a win/lose situation – zero sum game?

    As an aside – Cantor’s body language in this piece does not really inspire confidence. He comes across as shifty and perhaps a tad bit too disingenious for his own skin…

  11. peachin says:

    Eric Cantor appears to be patiently waiting for the opportunity, and positioning himself, to be “The” party leader. At home his partner will be his savior if he adopts her attitude towards women’s rights, and other social issues… “It’s” in his house and he doesn’t get it. He is “short” on modern, going forward issues. The Evangelicals probably like his running around the “house” as “Their Jewish Boy.” – Can he make the transition from a Republican “pet” to an “Important” Republican Leader…. not likely.

  12. DeDude says:

    The fact is that The TeaPartiers and their Cantor do not want to or believe in compromise or cooperation. They are convinced that their ideological crusade is a righteous one and that it, therefore, is OK to use any and all tricks (dirty or clean) to ensure that it succeeds. The potential damage to the country from such an approach is of less concern because they are convinced that in the end we are all doomed unless their agenda is fully implemented.

    Cantor’s handlers have been out poling the masses and realized that substantial numbers of voters somehow managed to understand that Cantor is a hardcore ideologog whose approaches to policy making is not good for the country. Support for the Koch puppets are way down, so something had to be done. Classic counter-offensives require a “what bad you think of me is not correct” type of PR campaign. So they instruct Cantor to project a “warm family man”, “sensible compromise willing”, “lets meet in the middle” and “lets just pass things we all can agree on” image. Problem is that this is not the real Cantor but a false PR based image of Cantor, and a decent journalist can expose that. Cantor does not believe, fit, or even understand his new image, and Leslie Stahl does a decent job of exposing that. Where she fails is to allow him to drag her down to the family home and help his PR campaign build a softer “just-like-you-and-me” family man image. She has a weakness for that kind of stuff; which is not real journalism.

    Mr. Caird may want to avoid 60 minutes since it does present facts, and attack false narratives as part of its journalistic mission. Stay with Fox “news” they will never attack any of your beloved right wing narratives, even if the facts hit them in the face. Instead they will make up new soothing “facts” that comfortably keep you a within your current illusions of reality. In one day of Fox watching you may be exposed to more lies than in a decade of missed 60 minutes programming, but it will be “good” lies, that confirm your beliefs. You know Bama is a Commie foreigner and the world will end unless we give the Koch brothers another big taxcut and destroy the gobinment (so there can be no entity powerful enough to interference with the rich raping the poor).

  13. victor says:

    Cantor is an idiot as evidenced by his refusal to act for immediate funding for the East Coast hurricane until Cristie chastised him. I continue to be amused by above balloony such as: uber rich Koch bro’s and Fox News are devils. All the while silent on the progressive uber rich such as financiers Soros or the likes of Blankfein or Dimon. Presumably the “gobinment” haters are fighting hard to maintain their low taxes?. The rich have been “raping the poor” for centuries, long before the Tea Party and Fox were invented. Get real! How ignorant a view!

  14. DeDude says:

    Enlighten us with some facts rather than a “don’t fight these devils – fight those devils”.

  15. victor says:

    My comment about Cantor is supported by a fact. My comment about your bias is also supported by examples. If you need facts about “rich raping the poor” (your words) throughout the centuries the code of Hammurabi would be a good starting point, though the Old Testament would do too. Then, for enlightenment (your words), look up when the deadly troyka of Fox/TP/Koch came into being. I am mindful though that facts carry no value for an ideology.

  16. DeDude says:

    “above balloony such as: uber rich Koch bro’s and Fox News are devils”

    Any “facts” to support that “above” was “balloony”? Or maybe just point to any false statements or faulty interpretations.

    Bias can always be claimed by pointing to peoples selection of issues, but in a piece about Cantor I do not see where it shows “bias” to talk about him and the group of tea-party legislators that he is drawing his strongest support from. Indeed it would show a lot more bias to try to push a debate about Cantor onto a different subject of banksters and liberals. That would be trying to divert attention away from the real subject.

    It is pretty obvious that we can agree that Cantor is an idiot and that the rich have always been raping the poor. The question is only by which tools and methods are they raping the poor today (presuming that you don’t think that because it has always been done we shouldn’t protest or fight it anymore). In the above video clip we witnessed one of those tools expose himself and that is what I am commenting on.