Covering George W. Bush's run for the White House, Dan Rather seemed concerned that Bush was moving too far to the Right during and after the Republican primaries. After the controversy following the 2000 election was resolved, Rather criticized Bush for not naming liberals to his cabinet. He also spoke of the U.S. Supreme Court "selecting" Bush as president.

See also Florida Labeling, Florida Controversy, Al Gore, and John McCain.

Al Gore and George W. Bush emerged as the frontrunners following the "Super Tuesday" primary voting of March 7, 2000:
"As for George Bush the younger, there's every reason to expect that the millions spent on negative attack ads and phone banks used against McCain will soon be dialing up against Al Gore."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, March 8, 2000.

David Letterman asked Dan Rather what he thought about George W. Bush's cabinet appointments:

Watch Dan Rather state that the U.S. Supreme Court "selected" George W. Bush. Choose either RealVideo (134KB, 285KB) or Windows Media (150KB, 358KB).

RATHER: Every president has a right once you're elected or selected, whichever word you prefer. Once you get--
(Crowd laughs)
LETTERMAN: (Laughing) He gets selected. He was selected the president!
RATHER: Every president, two things we know. One, is he has a right to appoint people to nominate people who he believes are ideologically and politically aligned with him. And number two, everybody who's elected or selected president has to--pay off in a way those people who helped him get elected. Now with the so-called quote Christian Right, uh, they really worked hard to get this nominee for Justice because they know how important that job is. Now whether President Bush should have in effect paid them in return for what they gave him during the election with this nominee, we'll see.
--Dan Rather on the Late Show with David Letterman, January 15, 2001.

DAN RATHER: Tonight's headlines: Daschle questions Bush's effectiveness in the war on terror [...] Good evening. We are now well into the second year of the war on terror. Tonight, there two very different assessments of how the war is, in fact, going. Tonight, President Bush, through a spokesman, repeated his insistence that the United States has made, quote, "tremendous progress." This, he said, includes dismantling Osama bin Laden's terror network. But bin Laden himself is still at-large and that, according to Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle, raises questions about how the war on terror is really going.
TOM DASCHLE: I think we have to question whether or not we're winning the war. We haven't found bin Laden. We haven't made any real progress in many of the other areas involving the key elements of al Qaeda. They continue to be as great a threat today as they were a year and a half ago. [splice]
I don't want to proclaim that it's not successful but I think there are increasing questions about whether or not the administration can legitimately say we are winning the war. [splice]
The front-page stories today ought to be a wakeup call to this country and to this administration that whatever they're doing, it's not enough.
--Dan Rather and Tom Daschle on the CBS Evening News, November 14, 2002.

"A newspaper-sponsored study out today suggests that if Al Gore got the hand count of Miami, Florida votes he wanted, he still might have lost the election to George Bush. What are called independent accountants reviewed ballots in Miami and found a net gain for Gore of 49 votes. Even adding those votes to Gore gains in three other disputed counties, Gore, they say, would have lost Florida by about 140 votes."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, February 26, 2001.

George W. Bush submitted his budget proposals to Congress. Democrats criticized them for having too large of tax cuts while not devoting enough for social programs. Republicans praised the bill for reigning wasteful spending. Dan Rather introduced a story on the House's passage of the bill by relaying only the Democratic view:
"They've got a plan. The House approves a spending and tax-cut blueprint.
(Footage of Dick Gephardt (House Minority Leader, D-Mo.))
"He calls it a fraud. Tonight, do the numbers add up, and what's in it for you?
(Other stories)
"Congress is pushing toward final passage of a slightly modified version of President Bush's budget and tax-cut plan. Now comes the hard part, actually putting the tax cuts into effect while making the numbers add up and holding down spending. Many critics say this plan doesn't add up, that there's no way to bankroll big tax cuts while at the same time saving Social Security, providing prescription drug coverage for seniors and spending more on education, defense and other programs."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, May 9, 2001.

"As expected, the U.S. Senate today gave final approval to a George Bush budget that specifies $1.3 trillion in tax cuts over about 11 years. It does not say how it's possible to do that while also spending more for education, defense and other things, including drug coverage for seniors."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, May 10, 2001.

CBS reported on reaction to Bush's stem cell decision in a report that relayed only one argument in support of Bush's decision--his HHS Secretary--and three arguments opposed to it:
DAN RATHER: As for President Bush's policy on federal funding for research involving stem cells taken from human embryos, that debate today went far beyond the issue of how much to spend. CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer is tracking that still developing story.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Two days into a fall session were Democrats and the White House are already at odds on dozens of issues, Congress waded into the scariest territory yet: science.
CHRISTOPHER DODD (D-Conn.): Nothing's more frightening to me than Congress trying to be a scientist.
SCHIEFFER: At issue is what to do about stem cell research, the tiny cells that scientists say could provide miracle cures for everything from Parkinson's disease to diabetes. The problem is many religious conservatives oppose such research, so the president limited federally backed research only to cells already created in previous experiments. But will that be enough?
TED KENNEDY (D-Mass.): President Bush has opened the door to government funding for this important area of health research. The question before the Congress is whether the door is open wide enough.
SCHIEFFER: 'No,' said a Rhode Island congressman, who believes the cells may be used someday to repair the kind of spinal injury that left him a quadriplegic.
JIM LANGEVIN (D-R.I.): I am frustrated with the discovery of just how little room it leaves for medical advancement.
SCHIEFFER: The administration point man admitted there won't be as many cells available for research as the White House first said, but argued there are plenty to get started.
TOMMY THOMPSON (Department of Health and Human Services): We need to move beyond the back-and-forth over the numbers and get to actual work and doing the basic research on this science.
SCHIEFFER: This controversy does not break on party lines. The president's main critic is a leading Republican who says the president's plan simply does not make enough cell lines available.
ARLEN SPECTER (R-Penn.): It has become apparent that many of the lines cited are not really viable or robust or usable.
SCHIEFFER: Specter and the scientific community want a much bigger and more aggressive research program, but with the White House and some Republicans so sensitive to criticism from the conservative right, it's not clear yet where Congress will come down on any of this. Dan.
RATHER: Bob Schieffer on Capitol Hill.
--Dan Rather and Bob Schieffer on the CBS Evening News, September 5, 2001.

"Welcome to the 2000 Republican National Convention, a study in contrasts and paradoxes. A place where rhetoric does a careful pas de deux with reality.
"Laura Bush and Colin Powell extol educational opportunity from the stage to a party that's consistently sought to slash educational spending and a vice presidential pick with a history of hostility to Head Start."
--Dan Rather in Rather's Notebook at the CBS Web site, August 1. 2000.

"Before the Rightward lurches of the primary campaign, George W. Bush..."
--Dan Rather in "Rather's Notebook" at the CBS News Web site, April 18, 2000.

George W. Bush had announced Dick Cheney as his vice presidential running mate:
"Democrats were quick to portray the ticket as quote 'two Texas oilmen' because Cheney was chief of a big Dallas-based oil supply conglomerate. They also blast Cheney's voting record in Congress as again, quote, 'outside the American mainstream' because of Cheney's votes against the Equal Rights for Women Amendment, against a woman's right to choose abortion--against abortion as Cheney prefers to put it--and Cheney's votes against gun control. Republicans see it all differently, most of them hailing Bush's choice and Cheney's experience."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, July 25, 2000.
Note: Rather devoted 14 words to what the Republicans thought of Cheney.

There was debate over whether or not the Census Bureau should have used adjusted numbers in its count. Democrats were for it, Republicans opposed it:
"Team Bush is moving tonight on two issues with widespread political and social impact. First, Commerce Secretary Donald Evans, carrying out the president's wishes, has now officially decided the 2000 Census will not be adjusted to make up for any under-count of the nation's poor and minorities.
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, March 6, 2001.

The Bush administration proposed giving funds for a reading program to the states to spend at their own discretion; Democrats and some others did not support this change and criticized the administration; CBS aired a report showing the opinions of Bush's critics and none from anyone who supported the decision:
DAN RATHER: On a related front, questions are being raised tonight about what is not in the new Bush budget for one long-running education program. CBS's John Roberts is tracking that story.
JOHN ROBERTS: At the Duke Ellington School for the Arts in Washington, book distribution day is all about opening up new opportunities.
MALE STUDENT: Books will help you be prepared for anything.
ROBERTS: But on this day there are concerns about lost opportunities. And questions why President Bush, who has made literacy a top priority, would close the book on one of the most successful nationwide reading programs in history.
PATRICIA BOND (School librarian): We're talking about literacy and reaching into the--all quadrants of the city and helping all children to learn and helping all children to succeed. We're gonna cut a reading program? Hello!
ROBERTS: With a budget of $20 million, Reading is Fundamental last year provided 14 million free books for school children, many of them disadvantaged. Mr. Bush wants to give that money to states to spend on education how they see fit. While states could individually choose to fund the program, administrators claim a piece-meal approach will destroy their purchasing power and distribution chain.
DICK SELLS (Vice President, Reading is Fundamental Inc.): From the management perspective alone it would be a horribly inefficient thing to do.
ROBERTS: Supporters of Reading is Fundamental wonder why the president would jeopardize a program that has been successful since the days of Lyndon Johnson. It counts among its advisory board members, the President's mother.
BARBARA BUSH (from archived tape): Reading is Fundamental, the national organization that has helped millions of young people discover the joys of reading.
ROBERTS: With next year's education bill at a crunch point in Congress, Democrats today promised to do all they could to save the program.
JOE LIEBERMAN (Senator, D–Conn.): No matter what the Bush budget says or other proposals say, I will predict to you that it will survive and flourish.
ROBERTS: Reading is Fundamental administrators hope the president just didn't realize what he was cutting when he swung the budget ax. But the White House was quite clear: the money is much better off in the hands of local control. Dan?
RATHER: John Roberts at the White House.
--Dan Rather and John Roberts on the CBS Evening News, April 26, 2001.

Rather provided his opinion about war with Iraq in his syndicated column:
"President Bush countered concerns that war against Iraq 'could detract from the war against terror' with what he said was evidence that Saddam is in league with al-Qaida. He also addressed worries 'that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse,' but his answer did not go much beyond 'The situation could hardly get worse.'

RATHER: I think by any reasonable analysis that George Bush is off to a pretty good start with his presidency.
LETTERMAN: Is that right? You were pleased with how he handled the situation with China, you thought that went all right?
RATHER: I'm not go--well, I'm pausing only because you said the way he handled it. I'm not sure if he handled it.
LETTERMAN: The way it was handled. I'm sorry, OK the way it was handled.
RATHER: Because remember, you have Uncle Cheney, who runs an awful lot of things.
--Dan Rather on the Late Show with David Letterman, June 7, 2001.

"Past votes in Congress are prompting new questions about [Vice Presidential nominee] Dick Cheney and whether, as some say, they show he's too outside the American mainstream for voters in the year 2000."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, July 27, 2000.

After being sworn in as president, George W. Bush tried to build support for his policies in Congress:
"Power politics was part of the drill today at the White House, as President Bush invited top Democrats over to take each other's measure and talk about prospects for his Republican Right agenda in Congress. Beyond the pleasantries and pledges of cooperation afterward, Democrats made it clear that they will cooperate up to a point. One of those points: the Bush tax cut plan. Democrats continue to view it as, among other things, a giveaway to the wealthy that spends the budget surplus and leaves no money for such things as seniors--to pay for prescription drugs."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, January 24, 2001.
Note: Rather only told viewers what Democrats thought of the tax plan.

Detractors and supporters of missile defense disagree over the validity of a 1972 treaty signed with the U.S.S.R. which prohibits the construction of such missile shields. Missile defense opponents (whose arguments are shown in blue) argue that the U.S. must abide by an agreement it signed while proponents (whose arguments are shown in red) argue the treaty is null because the U.S.S.R. no longer exists. CBS's coverage the day of Bush's announcement unquestioningly enunciated opponents' view of the treaty and provided them more air-time than proponents in a 12-to-5 ratio. CBS reporters cited no experts who were in favor of Bush's decision:
DAN RATHER: Not up in the air is President Bush's commitment to building what's called a missile defense shield over the nation. The president said today he's all for it, even if it violates a 1972 treaty. Russia, China, and some NATO allies fear this could generate a new arms race and then there's the question of whether it would work, at any price. CBS's John Roberts begins our coverage.
JOHN ROBERTS: With a declaration that the best offense is a good defense, President Bush today announced plans for a missile defense shield to protect America and her allies from rogue states with nuclear weapons.
GEORGE W. BUSH: They hate our friends. They hate our values. In such a world, cold war deterrence is no longer enough.
ROBERTS: The core of the plan is to create a defense against ballistic missiles targeting them either shortly after launch or in mid-trajectory. Attempts at mid-flight intercepts failed two out of the last three times.
TOM DASCHLE (Sen. Minority Leader, D-SD): We fear the president might be buying a lemon here. I don't know how you support the deployment of a program that doesn't work.
ROBERTS: President Bush today claimed new technologies show more promise. But the bigger problem may be to convince Russia, China, and nervous allies that missile defense does not represent a new threat of U.S. nuclear supremacy.
JOSEPH BIDEN (Senator, D-Del.): It's going to start a massive new arms race in China, India, Pakistan. We're going to be less secure rather than more secure.
ROBERTS: The 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia [the treaty was signed with the U.S.S.R.] prohibits development of the missile shield. In a phone call this morning, Mr. Bush urged Russia's president to replace that treaty and leave behind the cold war doctrine of mutually assured destruction.
BUSH: But I also made clear to him that it's important for us to think beyond the old days' concept that if we blew each other up the world would be safe. It told him the cold war is over.
ROBERTS: Defense analysts say while a missile shied may protect against launches from countries like North Korea, Iraq, and Iran, it does nothing to address the more urgent threat of, say, a terrorist ship sailing into New York harbor with a nuclear bomb on board.
MICHAEL O'HANLON (Brookings Institution): We need a balanced approach recognizing that missile threats are only one of many types, potential threats to the United States.
ROBERTS: President Bush hopes to placate the Russians by offering unilaterally deep cuts to the U.S. nuclear arsenal and he will dispatch his national security team to allied countries next week in hopes of easing their anxieties. Dan?
RATHER: John Roberts at the White House.
One of those anxieties is whether the U.S. is paying enough attention to what may be a more likely form of enemy attack, the type that a missile defense shield would never be able to stop. CBS News national security correspondent David Martin is tracking that part of the story.
DAVID MARTIN: What if the truck bomb which blew up the federal center in Oklahoma City had contained a biological warfare agent like anthrax? It would have killed one to three million people. Many experts believe that is a much more likely threat than a missile.
ROBERT BYRD (Senator, D-WV): I don't know about a missile defense shield, but here's something that may happen to this country, and probably will.
--Dan Rather, John Roberts, and David Martin on the CBS Evening News, May 1, 2001.

"When it was all over, the president-elect said that he was 'humbled' by the tightness of the vote and the processes that had unfolded in Florida. He signaled that he heard the mixed message and was ready to be a president for all the people.
"Some were surprised, then, when Bush nominated rock-ribbed conservatives to three key Cabinet posts: John Ashcroft for attorney general, Linda Chavez for labor secretary and Gail Norton for secretary of the interior.
"To Justice, the most important department, Bush picked a 'Christian Right' opponent of abortion and handgun control with controversial views on the Confederacy. And to Labor and Interior, he tapped nominees considered anathema to the core Democratic constituencies of organized labor and the environmental movement. On the left and in the center, folks began to wonder if Bush's "uniter, not a divider" rhetoric referred to only the most conservative wing of the Republican Party."
--Dan Rather in his syndicated column, January 15, 2001.

Early in his presidency, George W. Bush announced the formation of a commission to study if changes needed to be made to Social Security. After studying the matter for several months, the commission released a preliminary report saying that the system would fall apart unless laws were changed to allow partial privatization, a position rejected by most liberals. Dan Rather's program gave minimal coverage to the announcement but aired a full story on why some congressional Democrats were opposed to the group's finding: