Patterico's Pontifications

5/16/2022

Not Such a Smooth Start for New White House Press Secretary

Filed under: General — JVW @ 6:53 pm



[guest post by JVW]

Hey, we’ve all probably had a rough first day on the job at some point, but this is not a promising start for Karine Jean-Pierre:

She’s going to either have to work harder to commit these canned answers to memory, or else she is going to have to read her prepared responses more slowly and carefully to avoid stumbling over so many words. And of course we won’t even bother to say much about how empty and fatuous her answer is: more economic ignorance from Team Biden.

But, hey: she was able to promote her intersectionality bona fides — this sort of thing being just about the only Biden Administration “accomplishment” to speak of thus far — so I guess she’ll have (most) of the White House Press Corps eating out of her hand.

– JVW

26 Responses to “Not Such a Smooth Start for New White House Press Secretary”

  1. I would like to think that the reason she read the answer verbatim from her cheat sheet is because she couldn’t quite rouse herself to peddle such a line of utter horsestuff in her own words.

    JVW (020d31)

  2. Answer a fool according to his folly. Doocy is an asshole who asks asshole questions and he makes a habit of it.

    I like that she responded with “climate change”, also nonsensical, but her target audience’s dog whistle these days.

    nk (9338bd)

  3. But what do you think, JVW? Is inflation a political liability in the mid terms?

    nk (9338bd)

  4. I like that she responded with “climate change”, also nonsensical, but her target audience’s dog whistle these days.

    Only thing, nk, is that I’m not paying Doocy’s salary, but I certainly am paying Ms. Jean-Pierre’s (as are you, Doocy, and the rest of us). That being the case, I would appreciate her not piling up the horsestuff any higher than necessary.

    I think maybe the White House Press Secretary roles should be paid for either by the President’s campaign fund or by the respective party apparatus, considering that it’s been years and years since we’ve expected anything approximating the truth from any of them.

    JVW (020d31)

  5. @4. Boxes checked:

    ‘Karine Jean-Pierre (born August 13, 1974) is a political campaign organizer, activist, political commentator, and author serving as the White House Press Secretary since May 13, 2022, following the departure of Jen Psaki, making her the first black person and the first openly LGBTQ person to be Press Secretary. She served as the White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary from 2021 to 2022. She served as the chief of staff for U.S. Vice Presidential candidate Kamala Harris during the 2020 presidential campaign.

    Previously, Jean-Pierre was the senior advisor and national spokeswoman for MoveOn.org and a political analyst for NBC News and MSNBC. She is also a former lecturer in international and public affairs at Columbia University.’ -wikithirdstringer.lotsaluckkiddo

    Attaboy, Joey.

    ____________

    I think maybe the White House Press Secretary roles should be paid for either by the President’s campaign fund or by the respective party apparatus, considering that it’s been years and years since we’ve expected anything approximating the truth from any of them.

    And I believe the POTUS himself should have the guts to stand up and take his cuts at the balls and strikes and have his cleats cleaned for 20 minutes every day. No joke. I’m not kidding. ‘Here’s the deal’: , if a weenie PM can handle answers questions from MPs in the British House of Commons every week for half an hour, the American POTUS should be able to handle spitballs from Sam Donaldson clone Doocy.

    DCSCA (a8fd18)

  6. This is how it’s done:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sESlUEcfSxM

    DCSCA (a8fd18)

  7. i’m surprised she allowed the briefing to stray from the topic of herself

    JF (e4c056)

  8. @2. Answer a fool according to his folly.

    “Well I tell you what, if you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”- Joe Biden- 5/23/2020

    Priceless.

    DCSCA (a8fd18)

  9. You don’t get it.

    1) Talk about how not rising taxes on the rich causes inflation.
    2) Taxes are not raised.
    3) Inflation continues to happen.
    4) “See, we told you so!”

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  10. Doocy is an assh0le who asks assh0le questions and he makes a habit of it.

    What was the assh0le question? He is asking about a claim that Biden made, that not raising taxes on the rich is what causes inflation. Really, he did say that, as stupid as it is.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  11. Biden is also blaming “price gouging” for raising prices.

    My plan is to lower employer [sic] — lower everyday costs for — everyday costs for hardworking families and lower the deficit by asking large corporations and the wealthiest Americans to not engage in price gouging and to pay their fair share in taxes….

    But let me explain why this choice is so important. Let me start — let me start with the Putin price hike: high gas prices and energy prices.

    My plan is already in motion. I led the world and other countries to join with us to coordinate the largest release of oil from our stockpiles of all the countries in history — 240 million barrels to boost global supply.

    Here at home, U.S. oil and gas production is approaching record levels. In fact, we produced more oil domestically in my first year in office than my predecessor did in his first year.

    To further drive down prices, my administration is allowing the sta- — the sale of gasoline using homegrown biofuels — biofuels this summer, which wasn’t allowed before.

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/05/10/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-economy-5/

    So, corporations, Putin, price gouging and evil oil companies are responsible.

    And note this: “In fact, we produced more oil domestically in my first year in office than my predecessor did in his first year.”

    Well, gee, you had triple the inflation and infinity more COVID in your first year than Trump had in his first year. I mean if we are going to play that way.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  12. Not that Trump or Biden produced a drop of oil, but Trump’s first year was about expanding production and Biden’s first year was about quashing it. Then Biden turns around and takes credit for Trump’s expansion being hard to quash.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  13. So, corporations, Putin, price gouging and evil oil companies are responsible.

    You forgot witchcraft, thunderstorms, pepperoni-filled pizza crusts and, of course, Cher.

    DCSCA (a8fd18)

  14. Her answer should have been taxing the rich will prevent them doing evil with their wealth. The few wealthy who don’t do evil with their wealth do it for self preservation so they are not hunted down in the streets. This was a much better country (except for minorities) when the tax rate was 90% This country started going down hill when jfk lowered the tax rate on the rich. Remeber the hughes tool co. loan to tricky dick nixon?

    asset (00bcd6)

  15. I think she was reading the wrong answer off her little cheat sheet… unfortunately, giving people a peek of your grapefruits won’t always help you pass your exam like it did in college!

    mg (8cbc69)

  16. Another diversity hire.
    Fail.

    mg (8cbc69)

  17. This was a much better country (except for minorities) when the tax rate was 90% This country started going down hill when jfk lowered the tax rate on the rich. Remeber the hughes tool co. loan to tricky dick nixon?

    asset (00bcd6) — 5/17/2022 @ 1:38 am

    I’ve said in the past that I’m more than happy to go back to Eisenhower-era tax rates if the left is willing to go back to Eisenhower-era budgets. That was the last time we paid down the national debt on an annualized basis, incidentally.

    Nuke the Great Society and raise defense spending back to 50% of all output? Yeah, I’m more than willing to put up with 90% marginal rates for that deal. Somehow, I’ve never gotten any takers and the proposal results in a lot of throat-clearing.

    Factory Working Orphan (2775f0)

  18. “go back to Eisenhower-era tax rates if the left is willing to go back to Eisenhower-era budgets”

    It might be an interesting thought experiment, but there’s a lot to unpack…..and it’s not quite a realistic proposal. The budget today is dominated by social security, medicare/madicaid, defense, and interest payments. As a country, we’re getting older (median age 38 vs 30 in 1952), we’re living longer (79 vs 68.5 in 1952), and there’s a lot more of us (330M vs 156M). Any proposal must practically take into account entitlements as well as defense and taxes. Wishing things away isn’t serious.

    Sure, discretionary spending is in there too (energy, education, housing, food/agriculture, transportation, science, VA, international aid), and there is a fair share of fat no doubt, but we shouldn’t delude ourselves into thinking that our path to fiscal sanity comes through cutting low-income food and housing subsidies. The 91% tax rate is also a bit misleading because does that mean a lot of the tax breaks come back too? What exactly would much higher tax rates do to our economy today? I just can’t imagine that it would be benign. Recessions and unemployment choke off other revenue. So is that a gamble we want to take?

    Everyone wants to romanticize the 1950’s, but there’s no going back to that world. We came out of WW2 with our manufacturing base in place, our infrastructure not obliterated, and our population relatively in tact. So, together with a free market system, we dominated. It’s a different world and we need to figure this one out. We have to spend less and probably tax more….neither is popular….and everything is wrapped up in tribal politics. IF ONLY we had leaders talking seriously about fiscal sanity. Ukraine is a blip in the discussion…and distracts from the bigger tough decisions.

    AJ_Liberty (a36eed)

  19. The Biden Administrations wants to reduce costs for Medicare, but nit reduce co-pays. It all would go to support other spending.

    Sammy Fnkelman (02a146)

  20. To view the post I left

    Sammy Fnkelman (02a146)

  21. She’s claiming that if taxes are not raised on wealthier people and corporations, other people will have to pay higher taxes.

    That is simply not the case at all.

    Congress and the budget process does not work that way, even if in theory it is that way in the very very long run.

    It’s not like Congress is committed to raising taxes by X number of dollars (estimated) and the question is where to get it from.

    Also, this has nothing to do with inflation.

    She’s just claiming that without higher taxes on corporations etc., many people’s personal finances will be even worse than inflation without a pay raise may make it.

    By the way, tThe Biden Administration wants to reduce costs for Medicare, but nit reduce co-pays. It all would go to support other spending.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  22. Excellent comment AJ

    EPWJ (ded958)

  23. @14 You know the 90% tax rate was full of loopholes, right? And that only a foolish rich person paid that rate?

    Ah, but just make it 90% without any loopholes, you may think.

    In that case, there would be little incentive to work, innovate, start businesses, or earn any more than than the people in the lower tax brackets.

    Well, just tax the wealth they already have, you might propose.

    If that comes close to happening, the rich will just leave the country.

    Fine. We’ll just appropriate their property before they move, you insist.

    That is Communism. There are still a few countries who practice it. How is it working for them?

    norcal (3f02c4)

  24. Not Such a Smooth Start for New White House Press Secretary

    Given her previous media experience and time as ‘understudy’ to ‘Peppermint Patty,’ it’s rather surprising how mediocre her performance was. She should have hit the ground running; instead, a stumble out of the gate.

    DCSCA (fc60a7)

  25. The 91% tax rate is also a bit misleading because does that mean a lot of the tax breaks come back too?

    EVERY time that marginal rates come down in exchange for a major deduction being eliminated, the ink isn’t even dry before the Left wants to raise the marginal rates back up without restoring the deduction.

    Rates have gone up from Reagan’s 28% to almost 40% and very few deductions remain, or remain at their old levels, from that time. Just recently they wanted to raise the marginal rate back to 39.6% without reinstating the SALT deduction to something meaningful.

    If you really wanted to get their goat when they talk about undoing some GOP largess, offer to repeal every tax change going back to, say, 1985. Or 1993. Or 2009. But they’ll complain that the rich will benefit, ignoring that their hike was entirely on them.

    Kevin M (eeb9e9)

  26. @18. We have to spend less…

    ROFLMAO. Practice what you preach: start with Ukraine, AJ.

    As my late banker grandfather always said, ‘pay yourself first.’ 21st century America spending on Americans, for Americans… self-investment… is a good thing for the citizens of the United States. Blowing $50 billion in a ‘give away’ to Ukraine, which does not pay U.S, taxes; is not inhabited bu U.S. citizens and is not a U.S. territory– with borrowed money from adversary Red China no less, is not a good thing.

    DCSCA (fc60a7)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1592 secs.