On Friday’s Squawk Box, the CNBC panel devolved into chaos with corporate liberals defending “big box retailer[s]” as necessary and worthy of staying open during the worst throws of the coronavirus pandemic whereas other public places must and should remain closed in the name of public safety.
While the sentiment on Twitter sided with this blatant discrimination and crippling of the economy (and stated by people in the cushy home studios with salaries in the millions), panelist Rick Santelli stood firm in denouncing this nonsense and the lack of an effort to ensure that the men and women of the service sectors can get back on their feet.
Instead, co-host and New York Times columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin insisted “science” was on his side in crushing churches and restaurants while large corporations remain afloat.
Fellow corporate lefty Steve Liesman gave the game away before Santelli and Sorkin (with an assist from Liesman) came to blows, fretting that while “the aggregate economic numbers of this country [are] doing well” there’s still “really long food lines in a lot of places” as a sign of “deeper story of pain that's out there.”
After Liesman added that women have been hurt by the pandemic recession due to many having jobs in the once “stable service sector,” co-host (and NewsBusters reader) Joe Kernen brought up the hypocrisy of (Democratic) public officials “calling...to close things down except for the politicians themselves.”
Santelli emphasized that he “believe[s] in careful” concerning COVID and, after noting the hypocrisy of said officials, he called out the reality of “big box store[s]” being allowed to remain “jam packed” while “the service sector” continues to be crushed:
Therefore, there is actually and should be an ongoing debate as to, you know, why a parking lot for a big box store like by my house is jam packed, not one parking spot open. Why are those people any safer than a restaurant with plexiglass, I just don't get it, and I think there's a million of these questions that could be asked, and I think it's really sad that when we look at the service sector, and all the discussions we’ve had about that job losses that that particular dynamic isn't studied more, isn’t worked more, we don't put more people in a room to figure out ways so that these service sector employees and employers can all come back in a safer way you can't tell me that shutting down, which is the easiest answer, is not necessarily the only answer.
With trademark elitism and smugness, Sorkin insisted he be allowed to make “a public health and public service announcement for the audience” because “[t]he difference between a big box retailer and a restaurant or frankly, even a — a church, are so different it's unbelievable.”
Santelli — the man many cite as having helped to give birth to the Tea Party — was incensed by Sorkin’s brown-nosing, screaming that he “disagree[s].”
Sorkin kept going because, in his worth of “science,” crowded corporate retailers are safe because people there wear masks (while those backward peons in churches and restaurants supposedly don’t).
Despite the yelling, Santelli said Sorkin “have your thoughts and I can have mine,” but the latter made it clear that such exchange of ideas about helping millions of struggling working class Americans was not to be had.
To make matters worse, Sorkin channeled his inner coronabro by telling Santelli he’s “doing a disservice to the viewer” in not keeping them safe (click “expand”):
SANTELLI: I disagree. I disagree.
SORKIN: Going into a big box retailer, you're wearing —
SANTELLI: I disagree. You can have —
SORKIN: — you’re wearing a mask.
SANTELLI: You can have your thoughts and I can have mine.
SORKIN: You’re required to wear a mask.
SANTELLI: I disagree.
SORKIN: It's science. I’m sorry. It’s science.
SANTELLI: It’s not science.
SORKIN: If you're wearing a mask, it's a different story.
SANTELLI: 500 people in Lowes aren't any safer than 150 people in a restaurant that holds 600. I don't believe it. Sorry. Don't believe it.
SORKIN: Okay.
SANTELLI: And I live in an area —
SORKIN: You don't —
SANTELLI: — where there’s a lot of restaurants that fought back, and they don't have any problems, and they're open.
SORKIN: — okay, you don't have to believe it, but let me just say this —
SANTELLI: I don’t and I won’t.
SORKIN: — you're doing a disservice to the viewer because the viewers need to understand it.
SANTELLI: You are doing a disservice —
SORKIN: We — we are —
SANTELLI: — to the viewer. You are. You are.
SORKIN: I — I — I'm sorry I'm sorry. If — if — I would like to keep our viewers as healthy as humanly possible. The idea of packing people into restaurants and packing people into a Best Buy are completely different things. They’re different things.
Santelli continued to speak the truth by triggering Sorkin with an uncomfortable truth for progressives: “I think are viewers are smart enough to make part of those decisions on their own. I don't think that I'm much smarter than all the viewers like some people do.”
People calculating risk and making decisions about where to go and visit on their own? Shocking, I know.
Fast Money co-host Melissa Lee tried to redirect the panel back to the November jobs report, but she was unsuccessful as Liesman jumped in to ghoulishly gloat about how wrong Santelli was because of the coronavirus numbers continuing to rise (click “expand”):
LIESMAN: How’s that — how’s that working out for you, Rick? How’s it all working out for you? I mean, look at the numbers, Rick.
SANTELLI: It's working out fine. It’s working out fine, Steve.
LIESMAN; I think the numbers, Rick, belie — Rick, Rick, the numbers show that the idea —
SANTELLI: I understand it’s a horrible —
LIESMAN: — of let it rip has not worked all that well.
SANTELLI: — thing and people are getting sick and dying. I understand it.
LIESMAN: It’s working that well, Rick.
SANTELLI: I just think the way we deal —
LEE: I — I don’t think —
SANTELLI: — with it isn't —
LEE: — I think if we spent —
SANTELLI: — necessarily optimal.
LEE: — the rest of the show talking about this, there will be no agreement, so let's move on from here.
In just under five minutes, leave it to CNBC to remind viewers that big financiers and their media pals aren’t exactly looking out for we, the people and specifically working class Americans.
It must be nice to callously call for continued shutdown of restaurants and shuttering of restaurants while large corporate retails remain packed in the name of “science.” Someone should tell them that the Supreme Court has made it clear that way of thinking is antithetical to the Constitution.
This coronabros meltdown was made possible by advertisers such as Amazon and Geico. Follow the links to the MRC’s Conservatives Fight Back page.
To see the relevant CNBC transcript from December 4, click “expand.”
CNBC’s Squawk Box
December 4, 2020
8:39 a.m. EasternSTEVE LIESMAN: You could think about the numbers, the aggregate economic numbers of this country doing well while, you know, middle income or high upper income and wealthy people are spending whereas, you know, you have really long food lines in a lot of places, Joe, so it's the aggregate data, I think, hides a deeper story of pain that's out there in the economy
MELISSA LEE: Yeah, I wanted to follow up on that, Steve, and ask you to underscore that, and that is that the participation number being what it is makes the headline number look better than it actually is. Is that a fair assessment?
LIESMAN: Right it's a division thing. Right. It's a numerator/denominator thing. You’ve lost people in the work force. My guess, I haven't run the numbers. I had run them previously. Women have been hit hardest by this and that's because in part a care giver thing and a part of the unique nature of the downturn where women tended to fare better in recessions because they had predominantly more stable service sector jobs, but as you know, the service sector has been so hard hit in this downturn so women are suffering more because of that, and because that they end up being more often than not the primary care givers, so when kids can't go to school, women tend to stay home.
LEE: And Steve — you know —
JOE KERNEN: Hey, Rick, so we’ve — we’ve got kinda —
LEE: — the unemployment rate — fell is lower than ten
KERNEN: — who is it?
LEE: — for the first time lately.
KERNEN: Okay. I think that was Jason. Rick, I just wanted to just highlight something that the background of this whole discussion comes with what we're seeing in terms of COVID cases and we're seeing, you know, maybe stimulus, but we're seeing calls for not necessarily closing things down, but certainly there are some calls to — to close things down except for the politicians themselves, but — but for their constituents they’re talking about, they need to be much more careful. We're hearing, right
RICK SANTELLI: Yes, no, believe me, I — I believe in careful. And when I point out governor's cheating, it's not for the hypocrisy, which exists, it's the fact that I think many of these governors are intelligent people and they love their families which they’ve taken out into restaurants. Therefore, there is actually and should be an ongoing debate as to, you know, why a parking lot for a big box store like by my house is jam packed, not one parking spot open. Why are those people any safer than a restaurant with plexiglass, I just don't get it, and I think there's a million of these questions that could be asked, and I think it's really sad that when we look at the service sector, and all the discussions we’ve had about that job losses that that particular dynamic isn't studied more, isn’t worked more, we don't put more people in a room to figure out ways so that these service sector employees and employers can all come back in a safer way you can't tell me that shutting down, which is the easiest answer, is not necessarily the only answer.
ANDREW ROSS SORKIN: Rick, I — just — just as a — as a public health and public service announcement for the audience the difference between —
SANTELLI: Wait, wait. First of all, who is this?
SORKIN: — a big box retailer —
SANTELLI: Who is this?
SORKIN: Hold on. The difference between — it’s Andrew.
KERNEN: Who else? Who else? Of course.
SORKIN: The difference between a big box retailer — hold on. The difference between a big box retailer and a restaurant or frankly, even a — a church, are so different it's unbelievable.
SANTELLI: I disagree. I disagree.
SORKIN: Going into a big box retailer, you're wearing —
SANTELLI: I disagree. You can have —
SORKIN: — you’re wearing a mask.
SANTELLI: You can have your thoughts and I can have mine.
SORKIN: You’re required to wear a mask.
SANTELLI: I disagree.
SORKIN: It's science. I’m sorry. It’s science.
SANTELLI: It’s not science.
SORKIN: If you're wearing a mask, it's a different story.
SANTELLI: 500 people in Lowes aren't any safer than 150 people in a restaurant that holds 600. I don't believe it. Sorry. Don't believe it.
SORKIN: Okay.
SANTELLI: And I live in an area —
SORKIN: You don't —
SANTELLI: — where there’s a lot of restaurants that fought back, and they don't have any problems, and they're open.
SORKIN: — okay, you don't have to believe it, but let me just say this —
SANTELLI: I don’t and I won’t.
SORKIN: — you're doing a disservice to the viewer because the viewers need to understand it.
SANTELLI: You are doing a disservice —
SORKIN: We — we are —
SANTELLI: — to the viewer. You are. You are.
SORKIN: I — I — I'm sorry I'm sorry. If — if — I would like to keep our viewers as healthy as humanly possible. The idea of packing people into restaurants —
SANTELLI: Yeah. I think are viewers are —
SORKIN: — and packing people —
SANTELLI: — smart enough to make —
SORKIN: — into a Best Buy —
SANTELLI: — part of those decisions on their own.
SORKIN: — are completely different things.
SANTELLI: I don't think that I'm much smarter —
SORKIN: They’re different things.
SANTELLI: — than all the viewers like some people do.
LEE: Can I get in here, please, and get back to the jobs report.
LIESMAN: How’s that — how’s that working out for you, Rick? How’s it all working out for you? I mean, look at the numbers, Rick.
SANTELLI: It's working out fine. It’s working out fine, Steve.
LIESMAN; I think the numbers, Rick, belie — Rick, Rick, the numbers show that the idea —
SANTELLI: I understand it’s a horrible —
LIESMAN: — of let it rip has not worked all that well.
SANTELLI: — thing and people are getting sick and dying. I understand it.
LIESMAN: It’s working that well, Rick.
SANTELLI: I just think the way we deal —
LEE: I — I don’t think —
SANTELLI: — with it isn't —
LEE: — I think if we spent —
SANTELLI: — necessarily optimal.
LEE: — the rest of the show talking about this, there will be no agreement, so let's move on from here.
