Does The ‘NBC Editor’ Really Exist?

by Smitty

Daily- and Instapudit are on about Breitbart’s post concerning the fired NBC editor. Back at Breitbart:

The questions are only just beginning on Editgate. The release of the news of the firing just before the holiday weekend smacks of a cover-up; more than that, we know that the edit itself was not restricted to the Today show. Brian Williams and the brass at NBC News must provide answers. They are responsible for editorial output, not an unnamed producer. And they must be held responsible for an irresponsible and dangerous edit apparently deliberately designed to twist the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman story along racial lines.

NBC really loves them some voodoo editing.

Given their utter lack of forthrightness, both in pushing the initial lie about what Zimmerman said, and now the firing of this un-named editor, we really should ask: does this NBC jackwagon exist, or is NBC just stacking subterfuge upon misdirection?

And, even if this alleged jackwagon is produced, is he going to be fired fired, or just given the Full Imus? By that I mean, sent on what amounts to an extended vacation, and then brought back. In other words, how will the fundamental corruption of NBC be addressed?

The good news is that NBC’s perfidy has been exposed short of further tragedy. The bad news is that NBC is bad news.

Update: linked by The Lonely Conservative.

Althouse on the Cain Train?

“I thought David Gregory really lost his cool early on, as he was questioning Cain about 9-9-9. If you watch the video, you can see he’s agitated and grimacing in a way that really lacks the usual polished journalist quality.”
— Ann Althouse, “Herman Cain Nailed Meet the Press”

This is an unexpected but really quite welcome development. Professor Althouse has been critical of Cain previously and (like most in academia) is not generally a fan of the populist style. From the transcript of Meet the Press, she excerpts these examples of David Gregory’s visible frustration:

The reality of the plan is that some people pay more, some people pay less…. You’re saying [prices] actually go down?… This isn’t about behavior, Mr. Cain, this is about whether you pay–if you don’t pay taxes now, and you now have income tax and a sales tax, you pay more in taxes…. Mr. Cain, we talked to independent analysts ourselves…. We’re not just reading newspaper clips here… They tell us, they’ve looked at this, based on what’s available of the plan, and it’s incontrovertible.

I hadn’t really spotted that, but she’s right: Cain stood his ground, and one of the points that flustered David Gregory was this:

MR. GREGORY: The wealthiest Americans would pay less, the poorest Americans and middle class would pay more. You don’t dispute that.
MR. CAIN: I do dispute that. You are making — you and others are making assumptions about what wealthy Americans would do with their money, and you’re making assumptions about what the middle class and the poor. You can’t predict the behavior. If wealthy Americans…
MR. GREGORY: This isn’t about behavior, Mr. Cain, this is about whether you pay — if you don’t pay taxes now, and you now have income tax and a sales tax, you pay more in taxes.
MR. CAIN: More people will pay less in taxes. More people will pay less in taxes when you consider all the taxes.

What Cain was saying is that every system of taxation involves hidden economic incentives, and incentives influence behavior. Cain was correctly saying that the sales tax element of “9-9-9,” which Gregory and others assume would impose higher taxes on the poor, would only cause them to pay more taxes if they do not respond to the incentives, namely to spend less — or buy more secondhand merchandise, which isn’t taxed under his plan.

Cain is likewise correct in saying that “you can’t predict behavior” — i.e., The Law of Unintended Consequences. While this is as good an argument against “9-9-9” as it is in favor of it, Cain is correct that we cannot make easy assumptions about how such a radical alteration of the federal tax system would impact the economic behavior and financial well-being of various classes of people.

We can agree that a flat tax will generally be of most benefit to the wealthy (who pay a much higher percentage of their income under the existing progressive system) without assuming, willy-nilly, that others will be impoverished as a result. And the point of “9-9-9” is not to achieve “social justice,” but rather to unleash capital investment to spur economic growth. It is a supply-side solution to our current economic woes, and as such has been praised by the Club for Growth and by Art Laffer.

Would a man rather be unemployed and paying no taxes, or would he rather have a job and pay taxes? That’s the real choice, and yet David Gregory can’t seem to understand it.

We could update an old joke Ronald Reagan used to tell: “A recession is when your neighbor loses his job. A depression is when you lose your job. And a recovery is when David Gregory loses his job.”

PREVIOUSLY: Remember When David Gregory Raked Obama Over the Coals on ‘Meet the Press’?

Remember When David Gregory Raked Obama Over the Coals on ‘Meet the Press’?

Yeah. Me neither.

When Democrats go on Meet the Press, it’s like Justin Bieber sitting down for a hard-hitting interview with Tiger Beat. (“Do you like puppies?”) When conservatives go on Meet the Press, it’s like Hans Frank on trial at Nuremberg, except without benefit of a defense lawyer.

David Gregory just got through interrogating Herman Cain and grilled him relentlessly until, as Alex Pappas reports at The Daily Caller, the guilty perp finally confessed his crime:

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain admitted Sunday that “some people” would pay more in taxes every year under his “9-9-9” tax reform plan.
“That’s right. Some people will pay more,” Cain told David Gregory of NBC’s Meet the Press. “But most people will pay less, that’s my argument.”

Gregory, like all other critics of 9-9-9, seemed obsessed with the sales tax component. A 9% sales tax would be an incentive to saving and a disincentive to consumer spending, and you can argue about that as an economic effect. But as to the “who would pay more” question — a fetish of class-warfare liberals — Herman Cain is correct that this is dependent in large measure on individual choices, to wit:

Asked by Gregory who will pay more, Cain said, “The people who spend more money on new goods. The sales tax only applies to people who buy new goods, not used goods. That’s a big difference that doesn’t come out.”

UPDATE: After the Cain interrogation, Gregory then went to a panel discussion about the GOP campaign with Chuck Todd, Katty Kay and Joe Klein (none of whom would ever vote Republican under any circumstance) and followed that with a weird segment: a debate between Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (as proxy for Rick Perry) and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (proxy for Mitt Romney). It was as if Gregory meant to say: “OK, now that we’ve dismissed Herman Cain as a complete joke, let’s talk about the real contenders.”

UPDATE II: The media’s Nuremberg tribunal continues:

Long Ties to Koch Brothers Key to Cain’s Campaign

You can see the gallows from the courtroom window.

UPDATE III: Of course, the liberal media were salivating in anticipation of Gregory’s MTP assault on Cain, as Salon news editor Steve Kornacki wrote Friday:

“Herman Cain is about to get his time in the bright lights and he’s got 20 days to show he can handle it,” Scott Reed, a GOP strategist told Politico for a story that ran this morning. Actually, Cain may have a lot less than 20 days, because a look at this weekend’s Sunday show lineup finds that he’s scheduled to appear on “Meet the Press.” . . .
As for Cain, it’s often seemed like he’s winging it as a candidate, tirelessly preaching the “boldness” of his 9-9-9 tax plan and trying to handle everything else on instinct. Does he know what he’s getting himself into on Sunday?

Thanks to Joe in the comments for the catch. It’s important to note that Herman Cain is a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. Only if Gregory’s interview hurt Cain with GOP primary voters would it have any negative impact on his campaign. And from that perspective, I didn’t see any damage. Maybe others saw it differently — and I’m sure the usual suspects will show up in the comments to tell us all about how catastrophic MTP was for Cain.

UPDATE III: Quick rundown of the headline reaction:

Herman Cain: ‘I’m Not Familiar With
The Neoconservative Movement’

— Huffington Post

Cain Says His Deadly Fence Plan Was ‘a Joke’
— New York Times

 Cain foreign policy would lean on experts
 — Politico

Cain: People Will Demand 999
Even Though It Raises Their Taxes

— Think Progress

Cain says his rise in polls is for real
— Associated Press

GOP presidential candidate
Cain defends ‘9-9-9’

— Washington Times

UPDATE IV: Thanks to The Lonely Conservative for the video:

VIDEO: Brian Williams Announces NBC Poll Showing Herman Cain Leading

Wanted to post this one as a record for history:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Comment? I got no comment. I’m just thinking back to CPAC, when I was introducing my friends in the hotel lobby bar to “the next president of the United States.” And they all thought I was kidding.

HERMAN CAIN for PRESIDENT
Because Everybody Keeps Saying He Can’t Win
And Yet Somehow He Just Keeps on Winning

VIDEO: Wasserman-Schultz Discusses Weiner Scandal on ‘Meet the Press’

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

From the NBC transcript:

MR. GREGORY: Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, let me start with you.
REP. SCHULTZ: Sure.
MR. GREGORY: What, what led to the change? Why now call for him to resign?
REP. SCHULTZ: Well, I think that since this story broke we were giving Congressman Weiner some breathing room to be able to be, be circumspect, do the right thing, make a — you know, reach the conclusion that, that he needed to step back and step down on his own. And as of yesterday, when that didn’t happen, it was important to, to weigh in.
MR. GREGORY: But before his actual admission, you spoke about this during an interview, and this is what you said.

(Videotape, June 2, 2011)
REP. SCHULTZ: Anthony Weiner is dealing with a personal matter, and it should be left as a personal matter.
(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: When did it become less a personal matter and more an issue of public trust?
REP. SCHULTZ: Well, I made that statement before it had been revealed that Anthony had not been truthful, and that, that, that he was engaged in the conduct that he had been denying at the time. And once he crossed that threshold, acknowledged that, that he’d been lying, had engaged in conduct that is, you know, completely unacceptable and indefensible…
MR. PRIEBUS: Well, here’s the problem, David.
REP. SCHULTZ: …that’s where I thought that the — that’s where I thought the line was crossed.
MR. GREGORY: Well, I’ll come to you in just a second.
But is this enough that he seeks treatment, or would you still like him to straight out resign?
REP. SCHULTZ: The statement I made speaks for itself yesterday. I think Anthony Weiner needs to resign so he can focus on his family, focus on his own well-being, and make sure that…
MR. GREGORY: So there’s going to be more pressure from top Democrats to say this is not quite enough, leave of absence is not enough, he should step down completely.
REP. SCHULTZ: I think Leader Pelosi, Steve Israel, myself, we all came together yesterday…
MR. GREGORY: Well, what, what is it you can do? I mean, he’s obviously not listening to the admonitions of his colleagues.
REP. SCHULTZ: Well, at, at the end of the day, you know, a member of Congress makes their own decision, and that, that’s certainly going to be up to Anthony Weiner. But we have made clear that he needs to resign, he needs to focus on, on getting his, his own personal issues in order…
MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.
REP. SCHULTZ: …focus on his family and, and do the right thing…
MR. GREGORY: From your, from your…
REP. SCHULTZ: …by his constituents.

Politico notes Wasserman-Schultz’s admission that Democrats are powerless to force Weiner’s resignation.

Under House rules, a vote to expel Weiner could only come after a full Ethics Committee investigation, which would take months, and thus probably extend the scandal into 2012.

UPDATE: Linked by Donald Douglas at American Power — thanks!

UPDATE II: Linked by Don Surber — thanks!

PREVIOUSLY:


Chris Matthews Goes Off on GOP ‘Hate’; Mark Levin Goes Off on NBC News

Watching MSNBC is fun from an anthropological perspective. This is the kind of stuff that liberals believe. This is how their minds work. Here is Chris Matthews accusing Republicans and the Tea Party of hate:

What is so bizarre about that is that this wasn’t some off-the-cuff  gaffe. It was an actual scripted segment, during which Matthews used the words “hate” or “hatred” ten times in less than two minutes.

Following up on David Gregory’s idiotic race-baiting on Meet the Press, yesterday Mark Levin went off on NBC:

” ‘Some people think that when you called Obama the food stamp president, you know, that has a racial connotation.’ Really? Isn’t that interesting?
“Well, some people think, Mr. Gregory, that your question has a racial connotation. Not just race-baiting, but prejudice, because apparently now it is the official position of ‘Meet the Press’ that if you’re on food stamps, you’re black. I just wanted to clarify that point, because otherwise the question makes no sense. Or, that a majority of the people are on food stamps are black, which is not true. And yet that is the inference. Well, why would Mr. Gregory make that inference? Sure he’s not prejudiced? Why would he do that?”

The New N-Word: ‘Food Stamps’

According to David Gregory of NBC News, it is “coded racially-tinged language” to mention the increased use of food stamps under President Obama’s economic agenda:

“You want to be a country that creates food stamps, in which case frankly Obama’s is an enormous success. The most successful food stamp president in American history. Or do you want to be a country that creates paychecks?”
— Newt Gingrich

Unfortunately for David Gregory, the facts are on Newt’s side:

Aleister at American Glob: “That’s not racism, it’s poverty. It’s families who work and own homes but can’t afford food or gas. It’s people who want to work but have no job prospects. . . . It sucks and Obama owns it.”

UPDATE: Et tu, Joan Walsh? Why is it that so many liberals can’t tell the difference between “poor” and “black”?