GMA, NY Sun, Politico cut out part of Obama sentence in claiming he "stumbled" on driver's license question
In reporting on the November 15 Democratic presidential candidates debate, ABC's Good Morning America and The New York Sun misleadingly cropped Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) answer to a question regarding driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants in reporting that Obama "stumbled" on and "had problems" with the issue. Reporting that the debate's moderator, CNN host Wolf Blitzer, asked Obama, "Do you support or oppose driver's licenses for illegal immigrants," the Sun and Good Morning America quoted Obama saying: "I am not proposing that that's what we do," and: "I have already said I support the notion that we have to deal with public safety." Both the Sun and Good Morning America, however, cropped Obama's answer, failing to include the remaining portion of his sentence, in which he restated his support for allowing undocumented immigrants to have driver's licenses: "Look, I have already said I support the notion that we have to deal with public safety and that driver's licenses at the state level can make that happen" [emphasis added].
Politico chief political columnist Roger Simon also cropped Obama's answer in his November 16 column and claimed that Obama had a "real stumble" on the driver's license issue. Simon wrote that Obama gave "a non-answer answer," and quoted Obama saying, "No, no, no, no, look," writing that Obama was "trying to stumble his way out of his own answer." Simon did not quote Obama's subsequent statement: "I have already said I support the notion that we have to deal with public safety and that driver's licenses at the state level can make that happen."
From the November 15 debate:
BLITZER: Well, let's go through everybody because I want to be precise. I want to make sure the viewers and those of us who are here fully understand all of your positions on this barring -- avoiding, assuming there isn't going to be comprehensive immigration reform.
Do you support or oppose driver's licenses for illegal immigrants?
OBAMA: I am not proposing that that's what we do. What I'm saying is that we can't --
[laughter]
No, no, no, no. Look, I have already said I support the notion that we have to deal with public safety and that driver's licenses at the state level can make that happen. But what I also know --
BLITZER: All right --
OBAMA: But what I also know, Wolf, is that if we keep on getting distracted by this problem, then we are not solving it.
On the November 16 broadcast of Good Morning America, co-anchor Kate Snow reported that Obama "stumbled" when asked about the driver's licenses, but she cropped Obama's full answer:
SNOW: On giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, Clinton simplified her opinion.
CLINTON: No.
SNOW: This time Obama stumbled.
OBAMA: I am not proposing that that's what we do. What I'm saying is that we can't --
[laughter]
No, no, no, no. Look, I have already said I support the notion that we have to deal with public safety.
SNOW: As for the gender card:
CLINTON: And I understand very well that people are not attacking me because I'm a woman. They're attacking me because I'm ahead.
A November 16 New York Sun article headlined "Obama falters over illegal immigrants" similarly cropped Obama's statements in reporting that he "had problems" with the topic:
Senator Obama, who has presented himself as the top alternative to Senator Clinton in the Democratic presidential primary race, had problems with a debate question on the same topic Mrs. Clinton flubbed in their party's last debate: illegal immigration.
In response to a question on whether he would support giving driver's licenses to undocumented workers, Mr. Obama started off by saying, "When I was a state senator in Illinois, I voted to require that illegal aliens get trained, get a license, get insurance to protect public safety. That was my intention."
He went on to make a joke that undocumented workers don't come to America to drive, prompting laughter from the audience.
But the moderator, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer, asked Mr. Obama again what his position was on driver's licenses for the undocumented. The Illinois senator responded: "I am not proposing that that's what we do." He then went on to say, "I have already said I support the notion that we have to deal with public safety."
That answer prompted Mr. Blitzer to remark: "This is the sort of question available to a yes or no answer."
From Simon's November 16 Politico column:
But when it came to a real stumble, Clinton left that to her chief opponent, Barack Obama.
He tried the same duck-and-cover tactic that Clinton failed at in the last debate and on the same subject: driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.
When CNN moderator Wolf Blitzer asked Obama if he supported giving out such licenses, Obama replied: "When I was a state senator in Illinois, I voted to require that illegal aliens get trained, get a license, get insurance to protect public safety. That was my intention."
But Blitzer was not going to settle for a non-answer answer and said: "Do you support or oppose driver's licenses for illegal immigrants?"
Obama replied: "I am not proposing that that's what we do."
This led to laughter in the debate hall, and it was not the good kind of laughter.
"No, no, no, no, look," Obama said, trying to stumble his way out of his own answer, but Blitzer was properly relentless.
"This is the kind of question that is sort of available for a yes or no answer," Blitzer said and the audience laughed again.
And, again, it was not the kind of laughter that Obama wanted to hear.
Finally, Blitzer said: "Sen. Obama, yes or no?"
Obama was pinned. "Yes," he replied.
He did stumble on the question, then said "Yes", and stumbled some more......I strongly disagree with Obama on this. Most of the others were right in saying "No". Except Kucinich who said there are no illegal people, or some such inane nonsense. I admire him for sticking to his principles, but one Thanksgiving prayer for me next week is that he will NEVER be the POTUS.
Tommy, I agree I thought Obama did stumble big time.
The point is that other *news* agencies DIDN'T report his INITIAL answer... he answered directly and was reported as NOT answering directly...
I get the point , does not change the fact that he stumbled.
I agree Tommy.
I turned to my wife while Obama was bumbling through his answer & said:
"Geez he sounds just like Hillary"
I accidently click on GMA sometimes while trying to get ESPN and I just want to take a fire hose to the whole set and wash away their idiotic, plastered-on smiles and fake 'news' coverage...
Who put driver's licenses on the national agenda?
Considering we have a huge illegal immigration problem in this country with porous borders and a serious lack of enforcement, and considering it is the federal government's job, and considering any proposals for drivers licenses for illegals is a direct result of our federal government's failure......then it very much should be on the national agenda.
Do you fear that a Democratic President would introduce national legislation to make illegals eligible for driver's licenses?
No.
The President also does not spend our tax dollars, Congress does, but I am kind of interested in their position on that too.
Should driver's licenses be decided by the States?
And why would it be bad to have licensed drivers anyway? Would you rather not have a large database of pictures, and information to search for? I mean, the republicans should be drooling over giving licenses to illegal immigrants, because then you can track someone a whole lot better. I heard it somewhere that the driver's license database is the most used by law enforcement as far as locating people around the country. Why would it be bad for illegal immigrants/aliens to have a driver's license? In order to get one, they have to take a test, and prove that indeed, they know the rules of the road, and that they can actually drive. It would be better than having them drive around un-licensed. And at least in my State, if you have a driver's license, in order to get one, you have to show proof of insurance on your primary vehicle. This could take out, and or remove the issue of un-licensed un-insured drivers, and also have their names, locations, and pictures in a database that I'm sure the CIA and NSA could mine easily for possible terrorists (facial recognition software could be put to good use and all).
I'm just saying...
Driving is a privelege, not a right. Out of basic principle, if nothing else, we should not be issuing legal documents of any kind to those who are living in this country illegally.
And that privilege is granted by the states, not the federal government, making this anything but a presidential issue.
Pete I agree with you, the states should decide and the President has no power whatsoever on the issue.
As I said above, the POTUS does not spend our money either.
No, POTUS doesn't spend our money, but he can have a direct affect on it. You know, as in signing the budget into law, or vetoing the budget if he doesn't like what's in it. He can also make recommendations to his party, and influence what happens in Congress greatly.
This is why spending tax dollars has no ties to an illegal immigrant having a driver's license, they're not even remotely the same thing.
As you said, driving is a priveledge, not a right. That being said, you can grant a priveledge to anyone, but not rights, everyone is supposed to get their "rights". States should decide what to do with licensing of drivers, and it shouldn't be even worth mentioning in a Presidential debate. If I were one of them, that's how I'd answer that question. It's a State's issue. Over and done with.
If you're embarassed at some of your Democratic responses to this issue, why don't you just say so instead of this silly dance around about it being none of the President's business.....that is so absurd.
Over and done with, we get it.......
if you asked this to Bush and co., I'd expect a reply like 'that's just making the goverment BIGGER, not smaller- we need to use our limited resources to upgrade the ministry of oil in Iraq, to..., uhhh, fight TERRORISM!'
I think that's a valid point. Unfortunately, the Jingofascists will own this topic, and another complex issue will be reduced to bumper-sticker sloganeering. Any candidate who dares take such a nuanced position will be devoured by the Flying Monkeys.
Too bad.
Perhaps that will happen when those that want our immigration laws enforced are not slimed and slurred as racists and xenophobes.
That's too bad.
Which is har to do, since so many of the people that want our immigration laws enforced are racists and xenophobes.
If you offered anything more than your patented bombthrowing idiocy, well, let's just say that would be really hard for you. So keep at it, please. It is truly a gift to all opposing opinions.
3rd grade answer friend.
Richardson had the best and truest response of anyone on this issue last night. "This is a matter of public safety," he said. With licensed, insured drivers comes fewer accidents and lower premiums for us all. "Enforce border security and provide a clear path to citizenship." And finally, "talk to the Mexican government and say, "Hey, Mexico! Give your people jobs!""
And by the way, we want undocumented workers to learn the language, why woudn't we want them to learn the rules of the road?
Illegal aliens should enter the country as those who respect our laws do, legally. Then along with learning the language, they are welcome to learn the rules of the road and if deserved, like everyone else, they will get a drivers license.
Well, people are not going to respect our laws and enter the country legally so long as the fruit is so sweet over here and the path to citizenship is fraught with as many perils as the Mojave.
So, just look the other way? Don't punish the employers and ignore the sovereignty of this country? Sorry, can't agree.
Good for you. I disagree with your false premise, too. I said no such thing and you know it.
My implication was that the path to citizenship must be streamlined, NAFTA trade models must be scrapped and reworked to protect people and the environment. We should enforce border security of course, but being a reactionary is retrograde to the debate.
And yes, employers who hire undocumented workers finally need to pay for their free market regressions of low labor costs for higher profits. Businesses must return to the values of community stewardship, which means hiring people fom local communities at living wages. Now if you want to say that business needs no such intervention, you will continue to have low wage immigrants coming here and working those jobs that cannot sustain the American standard of living for Americans.
Round, my preference would be for someone to be able to read roadsigns before they drive. Just saying.
That's a fair point. Because of the way this forum is designed I can't really tell if your're replying to my post with the Richardson quotes. If you are I should point out that learning the language is at the top of Richardson's priorities. I have no problem with that so long as classes are accesible to all who need them. And I'm not talking about some for profit market solution to teaching english as a second language. I'm talking about responsible public programs.
Roundhouse, I was responding to your rhetorical about wanting immigrants to learn the language and equating that with learning the rules of our states' roads. I would like the first one to come before the latter, as I find the former to be a pretty integral part of driving.
OK. That's cool. But I would say purely for argument sake that reading the english language has very little to do with reading road signs. Road signs are specifically made for people who can't read, it's all numeric and iconic. Learning the language would help one pass the written portion of the test, but that's it.
Again I have no problem with immigrants learning english so long as they are provided easy access to it as part of a path to citizenship.
I don't understand why Republicans want to endanger children by flooding our roadways with terrified unlicensed drivers.
I love your spin. Love it. You are no better than Karl Rove.
I'm sure Republicans want unlicensed drivers on the road, "terrifying" our children.
I shouldn't have even dignified you post with a response.
I think your humor meter is on the fritz.
You didn't, you dodged it.
I can only stay silent on that one. Pathetic does come to mind.
Apex, not only can we see your "silent" response, you didn't offer any answer. That's pathetic.
It's a crazy world for the Democrats.
First they want the rest of us to excuse the fact that the illegal aliens are law breakers.
Second they want us to give them licenses so they won't be breaking the driving laws requiring licenses?
Am I the only one who sees this paradox?
The real unstated reason for this is not to benefit driving safety or lower insurance claims. It is an incremental attempt to add 12 million new Democratic Party voters to the rolls.
Well, gee-whiz, AA- maybe the replublicant's should' ve thought of that first, eh? please...- it's about DOCUMENTING the undocumented, and DEALING, in an appropiate way, with a problem the current administration is doing NOTHING about...
Good point.
Speaking of dealing with the issue, why are most Democrats in Congress (and some Republicans,) opposed to building the fence to keep more illegals from entering the country?
Why didn't Spitzer's proposal cover the motor-voter registration problem that will inevitably follow if illegals get driver's licenses? (Maybe it did, but I haven't seen it.) It seems to me that is not dealing with the problem either.
Primarily because a border wall would be ineffective and a huge waste of tax dollars.
On motor-voter, I believe Spitzer dropped his proposal and TBOMK no one proposed giving illegals the right to vote. What's your point?
AA, I think that's quite a jump to say a driver's license is going to get one into the polling booth. I realize you're just parroting a charge made by Rush and others in the media, but have you ever questioned why the assumption is made that illegal immigrants would all vote Democratic?
HBL,
You are just being argumentative for argument's sake.
The Democratic Party is pandering to illegals by proposing to grant them amnesty, driver's licenses, free health care, etc.. In California the already are passing laws protecting illegals and giving them benefits as if they were citizens.
It ain't rocket science.
SF makes me sick to my stomach now. I love the city, but truley hate the supervisors.
ps. HBL, are you familiar with NY's motor-voter law?
The National Voter Registration Act is commonly referred to as the "Motor Voter" bill because it provides for new voter registration opportunities at all DMV offices when you apply for or renew your New York State Driver’s license or ID card.
Residents also have the opportunity to register to vote at a wide variety of other New York State agencies. This component of the National Voter Registration Act is called the "Agency-Based Voter Registration Program," and it provides registration opportunities when applying for services or assistance at state agencies.
In addition to the Department of Motor Vehicles, you may apply to register to vote at any of the following New York State agency offices.
Mail-In Voter Registration Applications can be obtained from any of the New York State Agencies listed in the Agency-Based section of this page. You may also obtain a voter registration application by calling your county board of elections, 1-800-FOR-VOTE or, by filling out the on-line voter application request form..
Good find AA.
The operative word is resident. If you're a resident, as in citizen, native or naturalized you can register to vote. Otherwise, fuggitaboudit.
That list of places where one can register to vote was a wonderful act of public service. Thank you.
I for one am proud that voting registration in this country is accessible to all citizens. It needs to be easier. But if I were you I'd be careful. You may have your Republican credentials stripped if you keep informing the public where they can register to vote. It's anti-Republican to encourage the populace to vote. It's like Paul Wyreick told the christian conservative base of the GOP, that the greater the electorate turnout, the lower the Republican success rate.
Republicans simply do better when the people stay home on election day. It's not a knock, just a fact.
Right, Roundhouse. I think where they get confused is in thinking that the proposed licenses would be identical to U.S. citizens licenses, and that those will be a ticket into the voting booth.
Can't blame them, as I've heard it described that way in the media pretty often.
AA, I was only asking if you had any basis for your statement. I know, it's just an opinion, I'm sorry if you see any question as being argumentative.
So, you think that the goal (of Dems) is to grant citizenship to 12 million immigrants on the assumption that , because of what you consider pandering,they will all vote for Democrats.
Got it.It's not rocket science. ;0)
You know what - for those of you that are so concerned about "illegal immigrants", why don't you just come out and say in plain english what what you really want done with them..
You want them rounded up, put in camps and god knows what else after that...
Then again you're not going to do anything about the situation because it's too profitable to exploit other human beings anyway. If you really wanted to solve the issue you'd start throwing employers in jail that are using "illegals" as part of their work force.
As long as this is a country that coddles business, doles out corporate welfare and generally doesn't give a f*** about the common person you're going to have this problem with regards to people coming to this country to work. Not to mention the fact that these intra-continental trade treaties have exacerbated the problem. (i hope i used "intra" correctly)
I'm personally sick of non-caucasians being scapegoated where as no one dares to attack the corporatocracy that foments these conditions that lead to the situation at hand.
Good spin, spintronic. It happens that many people would like to see the rule of law respected. You're supposed to follow rules to enter a country and work, and that's what happens around the world. Think illegal aliens do better in Mexico? Do a little research, and find out how many of them are eligible for Mexican drivers licenses.
The fix, from my estimation, is two-fold:
2 new Ellis-island like facilities, one in Arizona on the border and one in Miami, where immigrants can come in, be checked for health issues, be documented, and on their way to citizenship. You build the fences to make sure they come through the facilities.
Spin, congress tried to pass a law that would make employers verify the status of the employee. But guess what judge said, "NO NO!" A democratic judge in SF. What say you now?
"I'm personally sick of non-caucasians being scapegoated where as no one dares to attack the corporatocracy that foments these conditions that lead to the situation at hand. "
Absolutely right, Spintronic. The failure to curve the impetus of border crossers is largely a free market failure to curtail the lust for bargain basement labor costs.
I think a question that needs to be answered is, "how many illegals do you really think would sign up for threse cards?"
Illegals already get fake id's, with no real tie to follow the laws. Many may fear being exposed by asking for such a card. Our constitution also states that America shall not migrate one race over another. The Mexican illegals are what, 5 for every 1 illegal in the states? I thought you people followed the constitution?
Apex, you seem to have narrowed down your positions to two; Too many illegal immigrants would get these licenses, or too few would.
You do have all your bases covered.
Part of the problem is that large segments of our economy exploit these illegal immigrants for cheap labor. If, indeed, you could round them all up and ship them out, large parts of our service economy would grind to a halt. Orchards, farms, construction, landscaping...are riddled with illegal workers.
What's the solution? I don't have a clue. I suspect, however, that it is not just "bleeding heart Liberals" who are opposing deportation. Isn't it possible that more than a few Republican business owners benefit from the cheap labor?
Quite possible and very true. Makes me wonder when people blame "corporate" America for the illegal problem...it's hearsay of course, but I see a lot more working in plant nurseries, farms, etc than at WalMart.
I think hammering on those who hire undocumented, illegal workers would do wonders to cut the illegal immigration..but the same people who yelp that "corporations" are causing the immigration issue are the ones who yelp when they're rounded up and deported, and the businesses they were working with fined heavily.
"If, indeed, you could round them all up and ship them out, large parts of our service economy would grind to a halt."
How patently ignorant, after a recent round ups at various meat packing plants the illegal workers were replaced in days by citizens and legal residents. By rooting out low paid workers like this and giving the jobs to Americans and leral residents the erosion to wages would surely be slowed. I do agree that powerful people on both sides of the aisle wish to continue business as usual with regards to immigration but the people (citizens and leagal immigrants) have grown tired of the government having a true two-tiered justice system where those who break the law by coming here illegaly are not prosecuted but those of us here legally would surely be prosecuted by breaking even the most insignificant law.