If you hear it on Meet The Press, assume it isn’t true

Here’s media favorite Professor Newt Gingrich opining on the US economy, last week:

REP. GINGRICH: Well, it’s very simple. He has policies—and I used a very direct analogy. He follows the same destructive political model that destroyed the city of Detroit. I follow the model that Rick Perry and others have used to create more jobs in Texas. You know, Texas two out of the last four years created more jobs than the other 49 states combined. I’m suggesting we know how to create jobs. Ronald Reagan did it. I was part of that. We know how to create jobs. We did it when I was speaker. And, and the way you create jobs is you have lower taxes, you have less regulation, you have litigation reform….

I know Gingrich was dog whistling, and this isn’t about Detroit or food stamps, but let’s pretend the mass volume of words he produces have actual, ordinary meaning and see about Detroit and paychecks and Michigan and food stamps:

Soon after taking office in 2009, President Obama was looking for a place to dramatize America’s economic woes, and tout his administration’s plan to turn things around. He picked Elkhart, Indiana, a struggling city in a state which then placed 42nd out of the 50 states in unemployment rates. Obama could also have picked a location in Michigan, which had a jobless rate of 13.3 percent that year, the highest in the nation. Or perhaps somewhere in Ohio or Illinois, which ranked 40th and 39th respectively.

As a region, the industrial Midwest has become synonymous in the public mind with the loss of manufacturing jobs, and a potent symbol of U.S. economic decline. So it might come as a shock to learn that over the last year, those four Midwestern states led the pack in reducing their jobless rates. And behind that trend is an emerging body of evidence that supports a much more optimistic view not just of the industrial Midwest region, but of the future of U.S. manufacturing.

Between this March and last, Michigan’s jobless rate dropped from 13.3 percent to 10.3 percent, according to Labor Department numbers. That 3 percentage-point decline led the nation. Illinois and Indiana were second and third–with rates that went from 11 percent to 8.8 percent, and 10.6 percent to 8.5 percent, respectively. And Ohio was tied for fourth, with a 1.6 percentage-point drop. Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio now all have jobless rates below the national average of 9 percent.As one analyst put it: “The economy would be limping along, at best, without the strong manufacturing sector.”

At least for Michigan, another surprising factor may also be playing a role in the turnaround. According to a recent analysis, the fastest-growing market for tech jobs–the sector that, more than any other, may represent the economy of the future–isn’t San Jose, Austin, or North Carolina’s Research Triangle. Instead, it’s the city that’s become our leading icon of industrial decline and urban decay: Detroit.

Gingrich doesn’t know anything about any of the places he talks about, and he doesn’t know anything about food stamps, either.

While Michigan had 18.8% of residents receiving food stamps in 2010, Texas had 15.3% of residents receiving food stamps in 2010, hardly a number for Rick Perry to brag about. Newt’s home state of Georgia, with tort reform, lax regulation and tax breaks, comes in at 17%.






75 replies
  1. 1
    Cat Lady says:

    I wouldn’t waste too many more pixels on Newt. His week is shaping up to be as good as last week was for Trump. He’s toast.

  2. 2
    trollhattan says:

    In which Richard Cohen somehow manages to write a useful column on lyin’ Newton and his lyin’ lies.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....ml?hpid=z4

    Also, too, Digby has a roundup of Republican outrage at Newton’s distain for the Ryan plan.

    http://digbysblog.blogspot.com.....-spit.html

    I haven’t a clue why he’s running, other than perhaps believing the others will commit serial fratricide and he’ll somehow be left over next summer. Na ga happen, he’s simply too odious.

  3. 3
    David Hunt says:

    As a Texan, let me say this: I can think of nothing positive to say about him. At all. I work hard to try to not physical wish harm on another human soul, but in the spectrum of American politicians

    As American Politicians go he rats close to Dick Cheney

  4. 4
    stuckinred says:

    @David Hunt: Rats is rhat!

  5. 5
    jl says:

    @trollhattan:

    “In which Richard Cohen somehow manages to write a useful column on lyin’ Newton and his lyin’ lies.”

    See, Newt can work miracles.

  6. 6
    The Dangerman says:

    Speaking of toast, can you imagine 10 years ago that the Right wanted to change the rules so The Governator could run for President? My, my, how times have changed.

    The pisser to the whole thing is Arnold was a known groper 10 years ago; if he would have been known to be a known philanderer, too, he MAY not have won (with so many people on the ballot, he may have still won) and CA wouldn’t be preparing to sink into the Pacific.

    Edit:

    As American Politicians go he rats close to Dick Cheney

    Excellent Freudian slip!

  7. 7
    Kay says:

    @Cat Lady:

    Screw him. Picking on those people when they’re down and trying to get up, using them to produce his disgusting dog whistles.
    He’s wrong every time he opens his mouth, and we shouldn’t be subjected to his nonsensical ramblings. 30 years is long enough. Let him find honest work.

  8. 8
    Yevgraf (fka Michael) says:

    OT, but y’all are gonna LOOOOOOOVE this.

    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.....hp?ref=fpb

    Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum doesn’t think former POW and torture survivor John McCain quite understands how torture works.

  9. 9
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    Gingrich doesn’t know anything about any of the places he talks about, and he doesn’t know anything about food stamps, either.

    and as long as he sticks with the Big 3 (plus 1), he’ll never be challenged by anyone who does.

    It’s annoying when sportscasters drag out statistics like “Bret Favre is 5 and 3 in October games in years when Halloween falls on a Tuesday”, but it does suggest that a couple interns with google and an earpiece for David Gregory could bring the facts to Newtie et al when they’re on

  10. 10
    MagicPanda says:

    Of all the crazy things that Newt says, the “Detroit” thing was clearly not tied to any facts.

    I mean.. what does this even mean?

    He follows the same destructive political model that destroyed the city of Detroit.

    What has Obama proposed that has anything to do with Detroit? What is the “destructive political model that destroyed the city of Detroit?” I thought it was brought about by the decline of the auto industry.

    I’m totally clueless here.

  11. 11
    cleek says:

    Newt doesn’t have to know anything about anything. contrary to the press’s chummy little nickname, he isn’t a professor, and he isn’t actually trying to teach anyone anything. that’s not his job. his job is to sell Newt to people who don’t know anything.

  12. 12
    Cat Lady says:

    @Kay:

    Hey Newt’s gotta be Newt, and I don’t think he spends one second in self-examination. Honest work is something he will never be capable of. The crime, for me, as always, is the inability of our FAIL media to ever have facts at their disposal – as you so devastatingly do – to call out his intellectual dishonesty. They focus on the dog whistling. Fine, but you see how he slimes himself into being the victim of the liebrul media when they point that out to him. Make him defend his “facts”.

  13. 13
    freelancer says:

    Mrs. Gingrich charged Tiffany’s at least a quarter mil in diamonds. Poor and Middle-class Republican voters are absolute imbeciles.

  14. 14
    kay says:

    @cleek:

    Is David Gregory a potted plant? Gingrich uses the question to filibuster in a bunch of sheer nonsense, and Gregory sits there.
    He did the same thing with Bachmann. She absolutely trounced him. He sat there and let her repeat flat-out lies 4 times, which was, of course, the reason she went on the show.
    Is it any wonder people don’t know anything?

  15. 15
    Xenocrates says:

    The set of “things about which Newt Gingrich is ignorant” can not be diagrammed on one piece of paper. The real question is how this charlatan has managed to convince so many in the media that he is a “thinker.” He is a flim-flam man who happens to be fairly well-spoken, but all in all; he’s a big piece of shit. And I mean that literally! He’s six feet of shit sloshing around in two shoes. Run, Newt, Run!!

  16. 16
    David Hunt says:

    Arrgh. Called away from my desk and thing got posted halfway through and un-edited.

    As a Texan, let me say this: I can think of nothing positive to say about Rick Perry. At all. I work hard to try to not wish physical harm on another human soul, but in the spectrum of American politicians, he rates close to Dick Cheney in the “I Wouldn’t Piss On Him If He Were On Fire” level of disgust.

  17. 17
    PeakVT says:

    @MagicPanda: Think along the lines of young bucks and t-bone steaks. That’s what Newt is saying in his bagger-ese dialect.

  18. 18
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @MagicPanda:

    What is the “destructive political model that destroyed the city of Detroit?”

    Giving free stuff to colored people. That’s what he means. “Welfare dependency” and all that. “Detroit” doesn’t mean “cars,” it means “black rampage.”

    ETA: @PeakVT: Jinx!

  19. 19
    Martin says:

    @Kay:

    Let him find honest work.

    LOL. Republicans don’t do honest work. See, that’s the dream of every Republican – to rise high enough in the ranks to be able to mooch off of society. Newt achieved the dream. The only place for him to aspire to now is federal prison.

  20. 20
    Morbo says:

    @MagicPanda: Also white flight.

  21. 21
    cleek says:

    @kay:

    Is David Gregory a potted plant?

    experts are divided.

    Is it any wonder people don’t know anything?

    nope. not to me. AFAICT, people don’t want to know anything.

  22. 22
    slag says:

    @kay:

    Is David Gregory a potted plant?

    On first blush, this sounds like a rhetorical question. However, after a few seconds’ thought, it comes off more as an empirical question. I think somebody needs to test this.

  23. 23
    Huckster says:

    Eh, newt. Once a backbencher, always a backbencher.

  24. 24
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @slag: My ferns and philodendrons tend to get those spider mites that produce tiny little cobwebs on the leaves. That could account for Potted David Gregory’s shock of whitish hair.

  25. 25
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Yevgraf (fka Michael):

    1. It’s about fucking time John McCain stood up and discussed, from his up close and personal viewpoint, the efficacy of torture. His entire performance from 2001-2008 in which he served his ambition and not his honor by being silent about this speaks volumes about the content of his character

    2. Santorum has earned his Google result.

  26. 26
    scav says:

    @slag: Makes me somehow want to poke him with fertilizer sticks and see what happens.

  27. 27
    slag says:

    @cleek:

    AFAICT, people don’t want to know anything.

    My experiences and observations suggest otherwise.

  28. 28
    kay says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    Right. Dog whistle. But since they sell Newt Gingrich as The Smart Republican, wouldn’t a better approach be to ask him why he continues to repeat sheer nonsense, rather than asking him if he’s race baiting? I mean, we know the answer to the race-baiting question. It’s “no, and I’m insulted you asked, and also Abraham Lincoln”.

  29. 29
    slag says:

    @scav:

    Makes me somehow want to poke him with fertilizer sticks and see what happens.

    Maybe that’s why they have a lot of Republicans on that show. Plenty of fertilizer.

  30. 30
    Mnemosyne says:

    @MagicPanda:

    Detroit put black people in charge. Newt’s given up on dog whistles and gone to air horns.

  31. 31
    General Stuck says:

    I just can’t focus on the wingnut clown show for the POTUS nom/ Just send me a candygram when they get done and throw a warm body into the ring. Fuckers are too crazy to hang on every insane utterance. I would rather watch a stream on ants carting off the remains of a tossed biscuit, which imo, really is quite analogous to the republican mindset about governance, not to mention sacred virtues of life in a capitalist society.

  32. 32
    Huckster says:

    Newt’s been on MTP 35 times apparently. Says he wasn’t prepared Sunday for the uber aggressive stylings of one David Gregory.

  33. 33
    Ash Can says:

    @Huckster: I just saw that on TPM. LOL! It would be one thing if Newt were to double down and say, in the face of all the criticism, “Yes, I meant what I said, and here’s why…” But no, he has to start sniveling out excuses, including this one. Not prepared for David Gregory’s questioning. Guess what, Newt — if you can’t handle the news media’s questions, you’re sure as hell not going to be able to handle the job of president of the US. So drop out now.

  34. 34
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @kay: Yes, it would. But race gets the pundits all excited, even the liberal ones, as Bob Somerby has pointed out.

  35. 35
  36. 36
    Stefan says:

    What has Obama proposed that has anything to do with Detroit? What is the “destructive political model that destroyed the city of Detroit?” I thought it was brought about by the decline of the auto industry. I’m totally clueless here.

    The city of Detroit is African-American, that’s what that means, nothing else. When Gingrich yammers “Detroit”, what all his listeners are really hearing is “black people black people black people….” It’s a coded racial dog whistle.

  37. 37
    khead says:

    Detroit is the latest dog whistle.

    To put it in DougJ terms, young bucks ruined Detroit.

    Edit: Many folks beat me to it.

  38. 38
    trollhattan says:

    @mawado:

    Channeling my inner Jesse Ventura, Give me Rachel Maddow, a waterboard and an hour, and I’ll have Newt confessing to being head of the Saskatchewan LPP.

    He’s such a little sissypants (not that there’s anything wrong with that).

  39. 39
    Steve says:

    The popular narrative regarding the decline of Detroit is that a corrupt black administration (Coleman A. Young, who my aunt used to run into at Communist Party meetings) took over and let the whole thing go to hell. In reality, yes, it had a lot more to do with economic factors, the decline of the auto industry, and the Republican strategy from Nixon onwards that decided the way to get votes is by spending money on the suburbs instead of the city.

    As a youngster growing up in the suburbs of Detroit I was definitely taught to believe in the prevailing narrative. But even though Mayor Young was in fact a corrupt SOB, that’s still a minor, minor part of the real story. There is a fantastic book called “The Origins of the Urban Crisis” that lays it all out from a historian’s perspective.

  40. 40
    MagicPanda says:

    @PeakVT, @FlipYrWhig, etc: I get all that. Newt says President Obama wants to turn the US into Detroit. That Obama is the “food stamp” president. All racist code words. I get that.

    I was going by Kay’s original premise, which is that a properly constructed racist dogwhistle has, at least, a veneer of non-racist meaning that holds together. (e.g., Lee Atwater talking about state’s rights)

    What Newt said (paraphrasing) was:
    Obama wants to follow Detroit’s policies, which have failed.

    Kay said:
    Hey, the second part of that statement doesn’t make sense. Detroit’s unemployment is declining.

    I said:
    And the first part of the premise doesn’t make sense either. What are these policies that Newt is talking about?

    I mean… when conservatives talk about the San Francisco liberals or whatever, I get what they’re saying. But Detroit policies? What is that exactly?

    Aw forget it. I’m not making any sense, am I?

  41. 41
    Mike G says:

    Right-wing motormouth asshole doesn’t know jack about the subject he’s talking about with such forceful conviction? I’ve never heard of such a thing.

    But their stupid sheep audience loves them for it because they project such strength and certainty and that’s what they crave in their scared, powerless little lives. Pointing out that Newt is full of shit ruins the lovely illusion and just makes them angry; and it’s irrelevant, because what they’re getting from him is not knowledge but anger. They’re mainlining hate, and don’t you dare get between a junkie and his fix.

  42. 42
    fasteddie9318 says:

    I realize, my friends, that America can never be truly exceptional until we end the food stamp program altogether lest we teach the peasant to depend on government largesse for its sustenance, but these numbers are still troubling to me. How can we call ourselves exceptional when 80+% of peasants are still able to afford their own food? More tax cuts for the Makers is what is required here.

  43. 43
    Poopyman says:

    @Huckster: Well, that tells us something about Timmeh, huh?

    Or not. Newt’s schtick is to throw out word salad liberally (!!) peppered with fear words like “destructive”, “radical”, and the like and tie them to a subject e.g. “Obama”. Folks passively listening can in no way logically digest this word salad, but they do pick up the fear words. Thus Newt talks directly to the lizard brain and totally bypasses the logical thought process.

    Anyway, to get back to Dancin’ Dave. He’s doing the best he can with what he’s got, and that’s exactly why he was chosen for this job. They needed somebody about two steps behind his interviewee. Makes him a poor dancer, IMO.

    ETA, Oh yeah, Mike G reminded me that the unguarded viewer sees an obviously Very Serious Person in his statesmanlike silver hair and thousand dollar suit, so what he’s saying must be true.

  44. 44
    slag says:

    But since they sell Newt Gingrich as The Smart Republican

    So, when did “smart” become a good thing? Wasn’t one of Obama’s negatives supposed to be that he was “professorial”? Now, all of a sudden, being professorial is a positive? Hmm…I wonder what changed.

  45. 45
    handy says:

    @MagicPanda:

    I read “Detroit policies” as a classic example of begging the question: You can tell a Detroit policy whenever you see high crime and high unemployment rates, because everybody knows Detroit policies bring crime and unemployment.

  46. 46
    Sly says:

    Gingrich doesn’t know anything about any of the places he talks about

    I’m more inclined to take the hypothesis that firmly adheres to the preponderance of evidence provided by Gingrich’s words and actions over the past two decades:

    He knows, he’s just a lying scumbag.

    @Steve: The Origins of the Urban Crisis is indeed a highly awesome book.

  47. 47
    aimai says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    I presume Newt means that he will lead the first wave of “White Flight” from the US. Obama’s policies of whateverthehellnewtmeans are leading to a hollowing out of the inner core of the US and the only response is for Newt et al to flee to Texas which will become a sucessful exurb. I think I saw this movie with Rock Hudson playing the role of the ex-confederate plantation owner who runs down to Mexico with his family when Obama won the civil war and drove him from his house. It didn’t end well.

    aimai

  48. 48
    MagicPanda says:

    @handy: Exactly. It makes about as much sense as the “Food Stamp President”. He just wanted to get words like “Detroit” and “Food Stamps” into the conversation and he didn’t even bother trying to make it plausible.

  49. 49
    hilts says:

    Gingrich said he should have been better prepared for the ““adversarial nature” of “Meet the Press.”“I didn’t go in there quite hostile enough, because it didn’t occur to me going in that you’d have a series of setups,” Gingrich said. “This wasn’t me randomly saying things. These were very deliberate efforts to pick fights.” He said his comments on the show were “a lot more controversial than I intended them to be.”

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/.....980-campai

  50. 50
    Robert Waldmann says:

    He may not know facts, but I think that Gingrich has figured out a nice mathematical trick. “Texas two out of the last four years created more jobs than the other 49 states combined.” Note that in two out of the last four years employment declined. This means that to outdo “the other 49 states combined” a state had to have a lower decline.

    This is easy. In 2008 and 2009 almost every state (if not every single state) had better employment growth than the other 49 states combined.

    Gingrich is so dishonest that he doesn’t even bother to learn the facts. But he isn’t stupid. He understands the basic concepts such as positive and negative numbers *and* he understands that he can use them to trick most of the people most of the time.

    I admire his audacity.

  51. 51
    Violet says:

    @kay:

    Is David Gregory a potted plant? Gingrich uses the question to filibuster in a bunch of sheer nonsense, and Gregory sits there.

    Hey! Don’t insult potted plants like that! Gregory is more like a paint chip. The old kind, with lead paint. Looks harmless enough from a distance, but is dangerous with too much contact. Also blows with the wind.

  52. 52

    And here’s something alse that struck me:

    I follow the model that Rick Perry and others have used to create more jobs in Texas. You know, Texas two out of the last four years created more jobs than the other 49 states combined. I’m suggesting we know how to create jobs. Ronald Reagan did it. I was part of that. We know how to create jobs. We did it when I was speaker. And, and the way you create jobs is you have lower taxes, you have less regulation, you have litigation reform…

    All the talk seems to be about “jobs”, but nobody seems to be talking about what kind of jobs they are. Now I don’t know much about Texas or Georgia, but bearing in mind the kind of policies the governments of those states push (“you have lower taxes, you have less regulation, you have litigation reform…) I’m guessing a lot of them are shitty-ass walmart jobs, low pay, no benefits, no overtime–though I’d dues to their corrupt union thug bosses!

    So, what good is it to be leading the country in “creating jobs” if the jobs you’re “creating” (I don’t know why that phrase irks me so, but it does) aren’t all that much better than the ones you could get in Mexico or Malaysia.

    Nobody, well, far too few of the serious columnists or politicians, want to talk about how this glorious new world with no economic borders has brought about a race to the bottom. I saw a piece in the Washington Post last week about the economy of Europe. It was warning that Europe has to change its irresponsible, profligate ways. It spends too much on paying its workers well and giving them good pensions.

    In the piece, they had some harsh words about France, where the workweek is 35 hours, and everybody gets a paid month or something off every year. And it said (I’m paraphrasing), “France has to get with in the game here. France is competing with China, where the work week begins at 60 hours and goes up from there.” Nobody in the piece, not the economists quoted in it or the writer himself, seemed to even consider that the problem might be the Chinese workweek. I mean, really, is that the goal we want to set for ourselves? China? A 60 or 70 or 80 hour workweek, with low pay and no vacation time and no benefits and no pensions for the workers when they break down from overwork?

    Now maybe some of these people do believe that’s what’s best for us. It seems psychopathic, but I can believe Ron Paul and the AEI and people like that might believe that this is the great new future we need to work toward. But I can only assume that most economists and most politicians don’t want to work toward that end. But they ought to say how they think we can be “more like China” and still treat our workers humanely. And it would be nice for them to spell out just what “humane treatment” or “decent treatment” of workers would be.

  53. 53
    tkogrumpy says:

    @cleek: Exactly! but he’s not just Narcissistic,he’s also nasty times two as well.

  54. 54
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @MagicPanda:

    when conservatives talk about the San Francisco liberals or whatever, I get what they’re saying. But Detroit policies? What is that exactly?

    But even “San Francisco liberals” isn’t a reference to policy, it’s just a reference to Teh Buttsecks. I don’t think these codewords and dogwhistles actually do need a veneer of non-bigoted meaning. I think you and kay are giving Republicans too much credit. I think it’s all just “You know what I’m talking about: Those People.” But, yes, it would be nice to put Newt on the spot and make him say what he means by “Detroit policies.” Because, you’re right, in terms of _actual policy_, there’s nothing he can point to.

  55. 55
    Suffern ACE says:

    Newt it appears is as much as a maverick as McCain. Thinking he could go on MTP and talk to the moderates…then go to some TEA rally and talk to the immoderates completely differently. I’m thinking it used to be possible to do that when you’re not running for president.

  56. 56
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @mawado:

    Now Newt is borrowing from the Sarah Palin playbook: “That liberal wench Katie Couric lobbed 30mph softballs at me!”

  57. 57
    MagicPanda says:

    @FlipYrWhig: Well, I live in San Francisco, and I can tell you that it’s not just that gay people live here. Our local politics is actually left wing. For example, we have laws that mandate health coverage by employers. We are discussing making it illegal to have a circumcision. Ok. Maybe that circumcision thing isn’t exactly a plank of the left wing platform, but my point is that our local politics are definitely different than most other places.

    And while none of our local city politics has anything to do with national politics (except maybe gay marriage), it is at least intellectually coherent to say something like “he is governing like a San Francisco liberal, and I disagree with that”. I have no idea what Detroit policies would even be. Sleeping with your chief of staff? (oh wait… our mayor did something similar as well).

    So yeah, I think I am saying exactly the same thing as you. Gingrich is just throwing out racist horseshit without trying to have it make sense. It’s just shocking to me that it’s so blatant and incoherent. How do you respond to something that makes no sense whatsoever?

    Interviewer: So, Newt, which of the President’s policies do you disagree with?

    Newt: Well, I disagree with his radical Muslim policies of Malcolm X welfare food stamp reparations, which I believe will lead to job-killing abortion on demand bestiality and did I mention Al Sharpton?

  58. 58
    scav says:

    I think I’m sensing a business opportunity: Kaplan Study Guides for the new MultipleChoice™ format Meet The Press

  59. 59
    singfoom says:

    @Duncan Dönitz (formerly Otto Graf von Pfmidtnöchtler-Pízsmőgy, Mumphrey, et al.): I’m sorry, did you just appeal to humanity? Cause that’s not done in the economic sphere. Sure, you may lose a couple workers to depression and suicide if you keep them working long hours for shit pay and a barely tolerable life, but you’ve got to think of the bottom line.

    If you don’t oppress those people, you won’t get your bonus. And if you don’t get your bonus, you can’t buy your second yacht. And if you can’t buy your second yacht, you won’t be able to have sex on it with that lady you met at the club while doing coke with your buddies. And if you can’t have sex with that lady, what’s the meaning of life? You might as well just get a normal job. (All of this imagined within the mind of a Gold In Sacks employee)

    So the answer is, work harder and longer hours, or I won’t get my shiny thing to compare my worth with to other rich assholes.

  60. 60
    Cat Lady says:

    @Villago Delenda Est:

    If we’re gonna get Palinisms, I’d rather have the real thing. This whole Newt kerfuffle is making me miss The Quittah, and I don’t say that lightly. Bring on Crazy Eyes Bachmann!

  61. 61
    Mattminus says:

    @MagicPanda:

    Black …eerrrr… excuse me, “food stamp” politicians, thats what.

  62. 62
    stormhit says:

    It’s not just a dog whistle Gingrich made up, he’s echoing Thomas Sowell’s March 29th column.

    Sowell is usually a good place to look if you want to find where some moronic argument bouncing around the conservative bubble came from.

  63. 63
    MagicPanda says:

    @Duncan Dönitz (formerly Otto Graf von Pfmidtnöchtler-Pízsmőgy, Mumphrey, et al.): One thing I think the Democrats need to do is to have a simple, consistent thing they can say to combat the “tax cuts create jobs” BS.

    Typically, I think politicians say something like “the failed policies of the last 20 years” but that is just too vague.

    And Democratic politicians are hesitant to talk about raising taxes for fear of being called “tax and spenders”.

    I think we should tie tax cuts for the rich to outsourcing more strongly. I would say something like this:

    “Cutting taxes for rich people doesn’t create jobs. It just makes rich people richer while they outsource our jobs to other countries.”

    I dunno. I’m not a politician so I’m sure someone else can come up with something better.

  64. 64
    El Cid says:

    Newt Gingrich is one of our society’s most brilliant intellectual statesmen.

    If he weren’t, why would so many print and broadcast media have turned to his commentaries for more than the last decade?

  65. 65
    WereBear says:

    @MagicPanda: One thing I think the Democrats need to do is to have a simple, consistent thing they can say to combat the “tax cuts create jobs” BS.

    How about Why haven’t they?

  66. 66
    gene108 says:

    @WereBear:

    How about Why haven’t they?

    Because for many people, “tax cuts creates jobs” and “tax hikes destroy jobs” have become a matter of faith.

    There is not way to get through to a large part of the country anymore.

  67. 67
    OzoneR says:

    @MagicPanda:

    “Cutting taxes for rich people doesn’t create jobs. It just makes rich people richer while they outsource our jobs to other countries.”

    The problem is, I hear this all the time from Democrats and it goes in one ear and out the other.

    The message isn’t the issue, it’s getting the message to stick, it’s not sticking, and that leaves many Democrats to just give up on it.

  68. 68
    MagicPanda says:

    @OzoneR: It’s not sticking because (a) everyone has to say it the same way without equivocating, and (b) they have to say it every day for a long time.

    I actually haven’t heard Democrats saying this clearly. I mean.. you often hear people using a paragraph to say essentially the same thing, but that doesn’t count.

    The right wing has been saying that tax cuts create jobs for 20+ years. It doesn’t happen over night.

  69. 69
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @MagicPanda: I guarantee you that no one who has ever made a crack about “San Francisco liberals” has the least knowledge about anything that actually happens in San Francisco, except that hippies and h0m0s live there.

  70. 70
    FlipYrWhig says:

    @gene108: It’s so weird, too. It’s like people imagine that everyone who works has been individually hired by a single rich person. Unless your job is “butler,” it probably didn’t happen that way. It’s just stupid to think that high taxes on rich individuals inhibit “job creation.” (And have you noticed that “job creators” [as a euphemism for ‘rich people’] is taking hold as a meme, the way “death tax” did once before?)

  71. 71
    OzoneR says:

    @MagicPanda:

    It’s not sticking because (a) everyone has to say it the same way without equivocating, and (b) they have to say it every day for a long time.

    that’s never going to happen because you can’t even get Democratic VOTERS to agree to any single issue.

  72. 72
    MikeBoyScout says:

    Excellent factual take down of the Profussor Kay.

  73. 73
    KG says:

    @Xenocrates:

    The set of “things about which Newt Gingrich is ignorant” can not be diagrammed on one piece of paper.

    Sure it can, in fact, I can do it in nine letters:

    ALL THINGS

    See?

  74. 74
    KG says:

    @MagicPanda: They should frame it as Republicans being for borrowing and spending. I had this argument with my dad a few years back. I tried to tell him that neither party was going to cut spending because spending is popular, so really the choice was between “tax and spend” and “borrow and spend.” And if that’s the choice, I’d rather pay now than pay twice as much later.

  75. 75
    OzoneR says:

    @FlipYrWhig:

    I guarantee you that no one who has ever made a crack about “San Francisco liberals” has the least knowledge about anything that actually happens in San Francisco, except that hippies and h0m0s live there.

    Actually the phrase wasn’t invented for that meaning, it just took a life of his own. The “San Francisco liberals” began as “San Francisco Democrats,” which was the term given to Democrats by Republicans in the 1980s for being “weak on national security and against the Soviets,” which was Reagan’s only trump card in 1984. The phrase was originally used because Democrats held their 1984 convention in San Francisco.

    Lucky for them the city was also becoming well known for being full of gays, hippies and socialists.

Comments are closed.