Sen. Judd Gregg Lashes Out at MSNBC Anchors Melissa Francis and Contessa Brewer
Jan 29th, 2010 | 59 responses
This has to be seen to be believed — and having seen the whole thing, I still am having trouble believing it. You can watch the video at Crooks and Liars; John Amato’s text explanation is below:
Judd Gregg just had a meltdown on MSNBC that came out of nowhere. He’s been attacking everything Obama, almost from the minute he turned down a Cabinet post offer from the White House, but his performance today was really weird. The conversation was about spending and, as usual, Gregg was acting like the incredible deficit freak that he is.
Melissa Francis is a CNBC talker who believes just like he does, and for some reason he mistook her for a dirty f*&king hippy and claimed she was setting him up as a man who wants to cut all spending on education. …
Francis is actually talking over Gregg, protesting, “I’m all for small government, tell me how you’d do it….” She and Brewer wanted him to say what programs, specifically, the Republicans would cut, given their criticisms of the federal deficit and their insistence that spending had to stop. For some reason, he took their questions as a personal attack on him:
Contessa Brewer brought up the fact that many economists think that when FDR became a deficit hawk so soon after expanding spending that he helped stop the country’s economic growth. She asked him if he thought money from education should be cut, he went off and called them liars.
Gregg: First off, nobody is saying no money for schools, what an absurd statement to make. And what a dishonest statement to make. On its face you’re being fundamentally dishonest when you make that type of statement.
Brewer: Senator, you’re going to be asked to cut certain programs from government if you’re on the Senate banking committee. Which programs — just tell us — would you cut?
–Gregg: And then it gets misrepresented by people like yourself who say they are going to, if you do any of this stuff you’re going to end up not funding education. I mean that statement alone is the most irresponsible statement I’ve heard from a reporter probably in a month.
Brewer: It wasn’t a statement, it was a question.
Gregg deliberately misconstrued what they said, and the conversation went downhill from there. Gregg acted like a typical conservative bully around women, and if they were both men he would not have tried to call them liars. Meanwhile, Contessa ended the interview very professionally. He owes Brewer and Francis an apology for his behavior.
That’s for sure.
59 Responses to “Sen. Judd Gregg Lashes Out at MSNBC Anchors Melissa Francis and Contessa Brewer”
LOL, Gregg 1 MSNBC Airheads 0
Sorry Kathy but that wasn't a meltdown that was a schooling.
At least they didn't call Gregg Al Sharpton.
” She asked him *if he thought* money from education should be cut, he went off and called them liars.”
Is the man a complete idiot who don't understand semantics or does he just have such thin skin that he thinks questions regarding a standpoint are statements about one and he jumps like a scared dog?
If I was asked if I wanted more taxation just because I was a left-wing politician I would explain that that was a bit of a lazy question, but perhaps fair given the proclivities of many left-wing politicians. I wouldn't go bazookas in a TV interview.
Anyhow this isn't news, but then again thats not what Kathy usually finds going to Crooks and Liars or Media Matters. Its like the National Enquirer for politics, she doesn't go there for issues, she goes there to try to dig up or fabricate dirt on GOP figures.
Considering how republicans didn't approve of Paygo or medicare cuts, I do wonder just what they are going to do on the fiscal side.
Imagine if republicans had obstructed Clinton's welfare reform, eh? Since the highest point in 1994 welfare enrollment has dropped. Imagine if the GOP had dug in its heels in order to bring malaise and frustration to the electorate, thus gaining in the midterms. That is what we are seeing here.
Considering that the GOP had control of both Houses of Congress when the Clinton wellfare reform was passed, I fail to see your point. Seems that they acted in a bipartisan enough way and worked out their differences when in the majority. Now please explain how that compares with the Democrats who with control of both Houses of ongress with a filibusterproof majority and the Presidency as well could not get their #1 agenda item passed. And please show me how Republicans stopped them despite there not being enough republicans in Congress to do so?
Sorry but its the progressives who were obstructing the bipartisan opposition (the only part that was bipartisan BTW). Their desire for the Mecha Godzilla bills obstructed real reform being carried out on areas where there could be agreement and prevented millions of Americans from seeing these reforms already working for them.
I have stopped coming here to Moderate Voice because Leonidas has turned discussion into another right vs. liberal yawnfest. You can tell what Leonidas is up to because he immediately changes the subject and attacks, Over and over. He really convinces himself every time too.
…and we will see how anyone governs when every move in the Senate requires 60 votes just to discuss something.
If the GOP ever has 51 votes, Leonidas will be calling for simple majorities. But people argue this way at every web site.
Leonidas is always right. Liberals are always wrong. Gregg was right to harangue women because that is what big he men Republican Senators do….
I wonder what Joe sees in Leonidas that I am missing, but whatever it is this site sounds like way too many others now.
Sorry to see you go. But my voice is just one here, take it or leave it as you please. I wont be offended in the least if you skip over my posts to read the rest. But I won't be silent because it offends you if I point out someone going to Crooks and liars for another “dig up the dirt run”.
Anyhow best wishes to you.
That is what I am talking about: you police this web site and make it your own and you are a very conservative and very typical “Hoo-Ray for me!” partisan.
This web site used to try to encourage conversation, and it was moderate and not right wing. Now, it is filled with dittoheads turning every liberal opinion into a crime.
If Judd Gregg ran for re-election, his opponent should show the video of this shameful bullying. It is a disgrace, even if Gregg is a sainted Republican.
LOL, sorry I don't think that Republicans are always right, the Bush years sucked. I'm for the moderates the RINOs and the Blue Dogs mostly. I like Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Evan Bah and Joe Liebermann for the most part better than I like The Jim Inhoffes and Nancy Pelosis, but the Democrats are in power now so more of my criticism will hit them now, just like more hit the GOP when Bush was in power, its a price that comes with authority and its called responsibility. When you have a supermajority that is filibuster proof, you get even more of that and trying to blame the other party for the opposition from the moderates in your own party just doesn't hold water with me.
Anyhow, your free to disagree with me and make your own points and present your own data if you think I'm incorrect, thats what debate and discussion is all about, I invite you to join in, maybe I can learn something from you or have to look into my own beliefs in light of what you may put forth, thats what I'm here for after all.
Funny that you'd call Gregg a “sainted republican”
The far right sure doesn't see him that way, for example, from Michelle Malkin:
Judd Gregg and Team Obama: A perfect fit
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/02/judd-gregg…
some more from Politico:
Judd Gregg is 8th Republican to back Sotomayor
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0809/…
Gregg is fairly moderate, not sainted by any means.
What Kathy leaves out is the question that got Gregg upset – one of the anchors asks “Are you willing to tell schools, no money for you?”. That was clearly the question that he was arguing about, not the question about what specific programs he would cut.
You could make the case Gregg over-reacted, but the two anchors either forgot what they asked him or were being deliberately obtuse.
That's the problem with Republicans, Deficit Cutting and Balancing the Budget sound really good in theory, but one you have to explain to the voting public how you would do it in practice, things get really interesting…
Republican Plan for Balancing Budget:
NO tax hikes.
NO defense cuts.
NO Cuts to Homeland Security.
NO Medicare cuts.
NO Social Security cuts.
So what's left to cut?
2088 Federal Budget Chart
Sorry I can't really defend MSNBC for acting like Fox.
Methinks everyone needs to chill. MSNBC played some “gotcha” and Sen. Gregg over-reacted. But right now, with the issues on the table in the grand ol' USA, “gotcha games” and over-reaction needs to turned down substantially.
I think the questions were poorly worded (by “no money”, I think she should have said “no additional money”), but I think Gregg clearly was in the greater wrong. He could have made his point about how the views of fiscal conservatives are being misrepresented much more respectably. It is a common practice in interviews, from what I've seen, to pose a question to someone in the context of how their political opponents might put it, in order to give the person a chance to respond to those claims. Gregg should not have made assumptions about the reporters motives and kept the discussion non-personal.
Indeed, although I don't strictly blame Leonidas—the shrill “extremist voices” have gotten louder by the day. I only recently started posting, but I’ve been a longtime reader and lurker. Yet, when I first started reading the MV blogs, as a very moderate conservative, I felt I had found a home. As you well know, it’s hard to find a conservative site that isn’t overrun by wingnuts. But the place has gone down a very partisan path in the past year.
What a shame.
What do you mean “gotcha”?
Elected Politician who has espoused political positions shows up on a news show, Reporters asked pointed questions about stated positions and about the means necessary to pursue stated position…
The “reporters” were doing their job… Wish they did it more often!
Knowing that Joe and the other editors discourage this kind of discussion about the bloggers here, I'll try to tread lightly….but I can't help but note that to me it is always a bit amusing when commenters raise criticism toward one of the few right leaning voices here as though that person crosses some sort of line of partisanship, when the exact criticism being raised can very appropriately be pointed out in the writings of at least 3 or 4 of the left of center authors here- and those authors being among the more prolific so that there are usually multiple posts that fit that mold here every day. If you're going to criticize Leonidas for echoing right wing talking points, how can you not notice that a few other authors here regularly link favorably to sites like Talking Points Memo, a site which basically takes marching orders from Emmanuel, Axelrod, and Gibbs?
Personally I think Leonidas provides some much needed balance even if I don't always agree with everything he writes (though obviously as a conservative I agree more often with him than with some others.) My preference would be for ALL of the writers to not have the same perspective, but to employ a high degree of intellectual honesty so that they would look on all politicians with more skepticism- on both sides of the aisle. I think most of the writers at least make an effort to do so and probably all think they are doing so- but most of the time right leaning authors will be more skeptical of Dem politicians and left leaning authors more skeptical of GOP politicians. This creates selection bias, where each author focuses and chooses to write about the 'gotchas' that put the other party in a bad light. Readers who have the same perspective as the author don't notice because they tend to also place the skepticism in the same opposing party, while readers who have the opposite affiliation find it very annoying that the party they agree more with is constantly being scrutinized or attacked.
Basically what it comes down to is that there're two parts to political analysis- one based on policy and one based on process. It would be nice if moderate voices would focus more on policy debate, and then when necessary to discuss process with equal doses of skepticism toward politicians of all ideologies. Focusing on actual policy debate is of utmost importance, because no one besides the political class really benefits from the other types of discussions. They are distractions from the real issues, and Dems and GOP both love to stir the pot so that voters basically take on a team mentality, arguing that the other guys are evil or rotten while ignoring the faults of their own. It's the ultimate game of 'let's you and him fight', where politicians stir up emotions to get voters to take a side instead of allowing cooler and more rational debates to ensue.
When the venom escalated over the fall and winter many in the middle stopped posting or slowed down for many reasons. I am not counting myself as a moderate, I am a libertarian socialist so I more count myself as a balanced extremist. For many I think they have accepted, as I have to a point, that you can't debate an ideologue nor can you debate someone that lives in a separate reality with separate facts and news sources and histories from the other sides separate facts and reality and history. I am not blaming MSNBC Fox and all of their stripe but they are a symptom of the same problem and one I usually complain about a good deal. My guess is that once or if the economy gets better the venom will calm for all but a few and the debates will commence again full throttle, its just that both sides are extremely angry right now and refuse to look in the mirror which they both need to do.
I think the questions were poorly worded (by “no money”, I think she should have said “no additional money”), but I think Gregg clearly was in the greater wrong.
I agree…I find it frustrating when a politician passes up an opportunity to respond to criticisms- even if the criticism is unfair or overstated, the politician could point that out calmly and then go on to refute the claim with a more factual answer instead of just blustering about the question and acting as though they're above answering it.
I always thought of this site as The Varied Voice more than as The Moderate Voice. It's a wide open courtroom where truth can be found be letting all sides ask questions and respond (more or less) respectfully. If someone wants a site where only one side rules, there's a lot of them out there. For those who don't fear other views and opposing facts: welcome.
You know MSF, neither of those terms would have made any sense to me a couple of years ago. I'm beginning to think we may have to make a sort of “commenter watchers guide” (like a bird watchers guide) so that newcomers, especially those used to the whole left-right thinking, might get a better understanding of the eclectic group that we have here.
Well said Prof, and I think that goes along with MSF's most recent comment.
As for the clip, I think it's clear that Judd Gregg was on edge, perhaps feeling defensive in the wake of the SOTU speech, and in his presumption basicallly wigged out.
As for Gregg's underlying “principles”, I think they are disingenuous and impractical, not to mention hypocritical. We all want fiscal responsibility and debts paid, but we don't all agree that govt. is a demon that must be dismantled. The guy needs to be more honest and he also needs to get a grip.
That's a really good comment, CS. Thank you for bringing some balance to this thread.
You have alot of people on this site–mostly men–who have an axe to grind.
They have unlimited time and energy to contribute to every thread, and attempt to drown out by sheer number of words everyone who is not just like them or does not hold their particular flavor of beliefs.
It's gotten worse lately, I conjecture, because they feel emboldened that Obama's first year has not been full of sunshine and puppies.
I would guess the ratio of men to women on this site is 10:1. It is so important that women–you know you are lurking–come out into the open, no matter what your political beliefs– and make yourselves known.
Give our concerns a voice. Some of them are going to be the same concerns as men. Some of them are not. Let's be a more vocal presence around here.
I really miss Polimom for that reason. Sadly I did not help keep her here I would guess, since I tend to debate in a classic masculine brass knuckles style and I often disagreed with her but I do miss her insights and views and the diversity as you correctly note does help in large ways.
show me how Republicans stopped them
In the past two years, they shattered the historical record in # of times they filibustered. That qualifies. It also is a complete about face after YEARS of screaming at the evil of Democrats for using the filibuster, about how every bill should have a chance to be voted on. I hate politics.
While I think the questions were poorly worded, I think Judd clearly overreacted and I think his behavior isn't that unusual. I have heard over and over and over again vague platitudes from the GOP about fiscal discipline and smaller government. The response to the SOTU was like that. No specifics on what they would actually cut. I have come to the conclusion that they do that to suck in fiscal conservatives, even though they have no intention of cutting ANYTHING important. We could cut discretionary spending to zero and still have a deficit. Yet, all I ever hear the GOP mouthing about are earmarks and SOME discretionary spending, which don't even TOUCH the increases to the deficit from their their current and further proposed tax cuts. No cuts to the petagon, to medicare, to education, etc. Nothing that matters, and these are the people responsible for Medicare Part D. The same people who were agitating for a brand new, expensive war with Iran, at least while Bush was still in office. I WANT reporters to ask questions about what they would actually cut. I want reporters to confront them when what they are proposing both doesn't go far enough OR actually increases the deficit because of the additional proposed tax cuts. These two may have botched their questions, but at least they were asking them.
It does seem to me that female voices are scarce lately. We're not generally interested in getting into pissing matches with idealogues, on either side. Which is where we are right now.
The unpleasantry has escalated, and I attribute that to a few malcontents who are probably unemployed and angry about it. Unfortunate, but realistic.
But I do want to address the misperception that by tapping out a manefesto to each and every thing that gets your panties into a twist, one is being READ. I usually skip over those, they're written by the same tiresome people and frankly, I have better things to do.
Short, pithy and to the point–that's the ticket.
I fail to see who the “dittoheads” around here are. There are conservatives (like myself) who have no use for showmen like Limbaugh — good riddance to him, and to Sarah Palin, for that matter, who are both huge liabilities. There is a reasoned conservatism, an educated conservatism that knows no party boundaries — Bart Stupak is a good example of a Dem conservative who fits this mold. Reasoned conservatism will not be forced into one party mold.
<blockkquote>But I do want to address the misperception that by tapping out a manefesto to each and every thing that gets your panties into a twist, one is being READ. I usually skip over those, they're written by the same tiresome people and frankly, I have better things to do.
Short, pithy and to the point–that's the ticket. BRAVO!!!!
It probably feels that the comments are overrun by conservatives because some of the more prolific liberal commentators haven't made comments in awhile (ChrisWWW, StockboySF, etc). So lately it's been more conservative commentators.
I still feel that there aren't enough center-right/conservative bloggers here. You have liberals, libertarians, center-left, a former center-right but like no conservatives. Well at least no prolific conservative. Would love for someone like CStanley to go from commentator to blogger like Kathy did.
But I give Joe some slack that he can't control how often his authors post. And I also credit him that he doesn't just ban people like Leonidas just cause some people don't like him.
I am a libertarian socialist”
I am shocked, shocked. Like Groucho, I should not have joined a club that would have me as a member.
The Lion may roar, but it gives the duck a chance to pull a lion's tail.
I also watch CNBC all day, I can tell you Melissa often sits next to Larry Kudlow physically and philosophically. Judd just talked (although I agreed with much of his non-rant stuff) past the interviewers and was wrong. Bad hair day, or expecting liberal interviewers, who knows?
Short, pithy and to the point–that's the ticket.”
Please, there are gentleman here. We can have pithing contests, but not the other.
I usually try to stay out of the discussions about whether this site is left or right leaning. But let me just say that I comment here far more than any other site, and there's a reason for that. When I venture off into other sites, they are often overrun with people from the left or right. The comments section are often filled with people self-congratulating each other over how enlightened they are and how stupid the other side is, and occasionally ganging up on a commenter from the other side. How boring is that? I, for one, enjoy the diversity of opinion on this site, and it has helped me appreciate and respect other perspectives, even when I don't disagree with them. And once in a while I actually learn something, which I think we too often forget is one of the purposes of these discussions–the point is not just to “win” the debate, although that is important too if the debate is over substantive matters.
Back to Gregg. Here's what he should have said:
“Of course no one is saying that the schools shouldn't have any money. That is a misprepresentation of the views of fiscal conservatives that some on the left use to try to discredit us. In fact, our concern is that by running up the national debt, we will find ourselves in a position were we can no longer afford to fund even our most important priorities, such as education.”
Gregg made that general point at the beginning (that a large debt will leave us in financial trouble in the future), and he should have stuck with it instead of going off.
Ms CStanley
Good to see your comments once again. I can't wait to correct some of your political misconceptions…:-)
As to the thread. The moment two reporters are designated as “airheads,” it stands to reason the anything that follows is the usual partisan blather you can get at Fox or MSNBC. It never ceases to amaze me how attacks to another party helps to refute the counter position.
Taxes???!! You smell!! makes about ass much sense.
As to plithy. TMV allows for deep discussions between people who don't usually get to talk together, and it's the drill down through the “”talking points” that makes these discussions work. Complicated positions and problem analysis may well require long exposition, and I for one, appreciate the times when someone takes the time to explain their position, not the conservative, liberal, libertarian, or socialist position – their personal position.
At the same time, the regular “half-hour infomercials” run by a few around here. My advice to them, Go sell your snake oil somewhere else, people are thinking here.
I would agree with you on the length of posts, if it 'twere not the same jokers with the same pablum time and again.
Both networks have more than their share of airheads, Neither the right nor the left has a monopoly of airhead journalism. It wasn't meant as partisan, unless you count the airhead vs good journalist bias in which I come down as strongly partisan in favor of good journalism, thus my call out to Jack Tapper who I doubt anyone here would thing of as a partisan journalist.
I have no qualms with the reasoned extremes—which, in reality, on the political continuum isn’t so extreme. But when they introduce the snide commentary, it turns reasoned extreme to jackass. Even if they have a point, the debate it spoiled.
To that point, why are people so angry anyhow? Frustration concerning the ineptitude of Congress I understand. But the seething hatred of Obama and his “commie” friends rings hollow to me, as did the criticism Reagan for being an Ebenezer by Democrats. They might slightly tilt one way or another, but there is no reason to toss around Hitler mustaches every time a president inches one way or the other. Frankly, the pendulum is a little askew to the right at the moment, and a course correction would be welcome.
Ha ha…..
Of course he wants to cut education. He wants to cut education and everything else he can cut, either now using the republican created debt as an example for doing so, or, without the debt as an excuse, by the republican ideology of cutting taxes as a philosophical morality. Makes no difference, republicans are always anti-people programs, except for when it comes to their, “own wallet program”.
Your a New Yorker so I was waiting on the moment you realized I had made it to easy and it was thus a trap. I was pleasantly surprised that it came to late!!
I think you are correct though, my issue was the way she spoke over him which reminded me of Fox and that is why I have no bad words for Gregg on the moment, probably just a bad day and he likely thought he was being Foxed if you will.
he was being Foxed if you will.”
Doing a good interview can be tricky. You can't let these guys just make a speech, which most of them try to do, R or D. You have to try and get questions answered. The politicians of course are selling their form of BS in a can. I've seen an interview with Mark Haines and Barney Frank that got so contentious that Barney just waddled off in a huff.
“the wake up call it will take for progressives”
The call was refused, by many — they substituted all kinds of excuses for what really happened, and more importantly, why.
* * *
” I have come to the conclusion that they do that to suck in fiscal conservatives, even though they have no intention of cutting ANYTHING important.”
They're also relying on being the lesser of two evils compared to the Dems, in many ways, not only this.
Of course, “lesser of two evils” is no guarantee of success at the polls, as we saw in 2006 and 2008.
“Why cant more journalists be like Jack Tapper……”
It's regrettable.
“she goes there to try to dig up or fabricate dirt on GOP figures, then comes running over here to post it on the Moderate Voice. Luckily you don' find the Conservatives here starting threads with links to Newsbusters in similar fashion”
True. Ironically for her, Kathy is the closest thing to Newsmax. All that's missing is the far left or partisan Dem equivalent of “Taxachusetts” (probably some name based on Texas she can think of).
You are of course correct. I think my issue is that for many of the Fox years we had something BBC like in this country for the first time…sadly it only went after Democrats. Then the whole media decided to begin to get in on the action like Greggory last week but since they also mainly go after Democrats it is not a style I have become fond of. In their defense Democrats now own the whole enchilada but it paints a partisan message. If the entire media acted this way with left and right I would be happy as a clam but I have a suspicion that they will again begin pulling their punches against Republicans because they do not wish to appear “partisan” but attacking Democrats is acceptable since everyone thinks their liberals. In short it paints a slightly partisan narrative I have been annoyed with for a good while so I have a habit of attacking the method and ignoring the reasons and sometimes good results and I try to be consistent with my views.
I think I am going to need to munch on this one a bit and ponder whether I need to begin not hating on Fox but hating only on partisanship and pushing the viscous interview style as good interviewing, because when it comes right down to it it is. Of course you put in any phrases like “some people say” or extremist smear job questions and I would feel differently but I must admit to loving me some BBC style interviewing techniques. In fact I expected Fox to go back to its 90's Clinton style after the 08 election and therefore thought I may begin watching again and they decided instead to go all Art Bell.
I agree with what you say about Leonidas's style of argumentation, but if you are referring to Joe Gandelman in “I wonder what Joe sees in Leonidas that I am missing…” I'm not sure what you mean by that. What does Joe have to do with Leonidas? Leonidas is not a contributing writer; he's a commenter.
But I won't be silent because it offends you if I point out someone going to Crooks and liars for another “dig up the dirt run”.
Except for the obvious point that the above is not a fair or accurate characterization of what I did.
But I'm not offended. I know your game. Carry on with it.
That was clearly the question that he was arguing about, not the question about what specific programs he would cut.
Why didn't he answer the question, then? Why didn't he answer the question about which specific programs he would cut?
Excuse me, T-Steel, but what was the “gotcha” from MSNBC? They noted that Sen. Gregg and other Republicans are very critical of Obama over the size of the deficit, and they want him to cut spending, so which specific programs would Gregg want to cut? You know, it's one thing to score political points (or try to) by going on and on about how huge the deficit is and to drone on endlessly about how spending is out of control. It's quite another to actually take responsibility for making those cuts, and saying what specific cuts you would make. Francis and Brewer were not only perfectly within their rights to ask such a question of Gregg, it was their responsibility and their job as journalists to do so.
All Gregg had to do was answer the questions. He didn't want to. That was clear.
They never answer the questions about which programs they would cut. There is no honesty in this brand of conservatism. There hasn't been since Reagan promised that he could increase defense spending, decrease taxes and still balance the budget. That's when I quit voting for Republicans and they haven't done anything to persuade me that decision was wrong.
AD, I think all the points you made above are very well-taken. I would only quibble with your saying that Francis and Brewer should have used the construction “no additional money” instead of “no money.” They were asking a question about spending cuts. That means cutting already existing programs. I don't see how no additional money is relevant there.