Piers Morgan on Monday picked the wrong guy to toss Democrat talking points at.
After the CNN anchor spoke the typical liberal nonsense about Paul Ryan's budget only benefiting rich people, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich scolded, "I do wonder sometimes if you guys all get off in a little club and learn a brand new mantra and then all repeat it mindlessly...You guys almost sound like you're an extension of the Obama campaign" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
PIERS MORGAN, HOST: I suppose the fundamental debate that's going to be had, though, will come down to whether the Republicans can sell to the American people that they are really concerned about jobs, about people’s livelihoods, and all the rest of it. If they're also scratching the backs of their rich and wealthy members, which is clearly I think the flaw in the Ryan plan is that it just does. I mean, if you're very wealthy, you're going to be doing a lot better out of Paul Ryan than you would out of Barack Obama who believes fundamentally the rich should pay more tax.
NEWT GINGRICH: You know, I don't want to sound disrespectful, but I do wonder sometimes if you guys all get off in a little club and learn a brand new mantra and then all repeat it mindlessly. The fact is, these kinds of things were said about Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan's tax cut - which was developed by Jack Kemp who Paul Ryan worked for - Ronald Reagan’s tax cut raised more people to middle class status, took more people out of poverty, created more jobs.
You know, this is the core thing that liberals don't get. If you want to have jobs, you have to encourage job creators. If you discourage job creators, if you engage in class warfare, if you do what Barack Obama’s been doing, you have what we currently have. This is the worst recovery in 75 years.
Now, nobody in the media seems to want to come to grips with the fact that the Obama economic policy is a disaster for the poor. Look at the unemployment rate for black teenagers. Look at the unemployment rate for Latino teenagers. At what point do we hold the president accountable for a policy which is crippling the poor in America by crushing the economy under big government?
Ryan and Romney represent a different approach. And I think there's this mantra you guys almost sound like you're an extension of the Obama campaign. The Ryan/Romney plan empowers middle class Americans to get a job. When they get a job, their income goes up. They pay more taxes. They are independent. They're able to live their own lives.
Obama worries about student loans. None of those students are going to get any jobs under Obama. Ryan and Romney are worried about getting jobs for those students so they can pay off the Obama loans.
I think this is a fundamentally different model, and I know everybody in the media wants to rush down and narrow it down to one point. So I’m going to rush down and narrow it down to one point: how long are we going to tolerate a president who makes the poorest Americans more unemployed, who pushes more poor Americans on to food stamps, and who eliminates hope for minorities? And that's the Barack Obama record after four years.
You wouldn't know that based on how media members such as Morgan treat the current White House resident irrespective of the current economic conditions.
What's interesting is that you can't swing a dead cat in D.C. or Manhattan without hitting some so-called journalist or pundit marveling about how well Obama is polling despite high unemployment and other associated problems in the nation.
One of the likely causes is that media members are far more concerned with getting the president reelected than they are policies that could help Americans financially. If this weren't the case, they'd be far more critical of Obama, and his poll numbers would reflect it.
Instead they continue to misrepresent and play down the poor economy as well as the policies responsible for it in a shameful effort to give the man steering the boat into the iceberg another four years.
Meanwhile, any politician or candidate with a plan to avoid catastrophe is ridiculed as an extremist singularly out to help the rich.
This would all be funny if it weren't so hazardous to everyone's livelihood except for those in the media whose jobs seem fairly secure regardless of their competence or complicity with preserving the obviously intolerable status quo.