My husband, the attorney, has a golden rule for asking questions of a witness in a trial: never ask a question in such a way that you don't already know what will be the answer.
I can only presume that David Gregory, rather than playing at being a journalist and letting facts unfold as they will and informing his viewership, decided that he was in fact an advocate for a cause. However, he is such an inept one that he found himself in the uncomfortable position of having to constantly interrupt DNC Chair and Rep Debbie Wasserman-Schultz rather than let her finish a sentence that might be good for populism.
Moreover, for the comfortably ensconced David Gregory, all these issues--the Keystone XL pipeline, the Affordable Care Act, the 2016 midterm elections though political lenses...not how if affects people and chides Wasserman-Schultz a few times for "arguing on the merits".
REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Well, that's Legislation 101. I mean, that is how we have handled laws and their evolution throughout American history. The president is right, and Jeanne Shaheen is right. We have a law that is working: 8 million people have gained health care coverage as a result of signing up for the Affordable Care Act plans. 129 people with pre-existing conditions no longer have to be worried about being dropped or denied coverage; I'm one of them, as a breast cancer survivor. You have millions of seniors who are paying lower costs on their prescription drugs.
And these are the things that Republicans are obsessed with taking away, and focused on doing everything they can to block President Obama at every turn, even if it means hurting the middle class. While, at the same time, you have our candidates, our incumbents, like Jeanne Shaheen, like Mary Landrieu, who understand that this is a law that's working for millions of people. And as we discover there are problems, we should work together--
DAVID GREGORY: But you're making an argument--
REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: --to solve those problems.
DAVID GREGORY: --on the merits, as the president is doing. But what you've got is something that's opaque, as David Shribman was saying, the publisher in Pittsburgh. A lot of people simply don't understand it, and they don't understand fully what the impact is going to be. Jonathan Martin, writing in The New York Times this morning, writes this: "Democrats could ultimately see some political benefit from the law. But in this midterm election, they're confronting a vexing reality: Many of those helped by the health care law, notably young people and minorities, are the least likely to cast votes that could preserve it.
"Even though millions have gained health insurance and millions more will benefit from some of its people, provisions, quote, 'The angry opponents are more mobilized than the beneficiaries,' said David Axelrod, long-time advisor to Mr. Obama." Midterm fall off, sixth year of his presidency: This has got to be an urgent issue for you, as the chair of the party, making sure Democrats get out and vote, who are excited about this law.
REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Well, there are millions of people who understand the benefits of the health care law, particularly women who I've spoken to who are breast cancer patients, who no longer have to choose between the chemotherapy or the radiation.
DAVID GREGORY: You're arguing the merits, Chairman--
REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: No, I'm--
DAVID GREGORY: --which I understand. But do you not have a turnout problem that you're worried about?
REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: Every election it is critical that we turn out vote out. And I would, and will, match up ground game and our turnout operation, which ran circles around the Republicans in 2012 and in 2008, any day of the week. We have senators across this country, House members-- there's 14 open seats in the House, 11 of which Democrats have an advantage; only three of which you would lean more to the G.O.P. in terms of advantage.
You have the Republican Party who is strangled by the Tea Party. They are weighed down by Republican primaries in which the Tea Party candidates are the likely winners. And we have countless elections now that Democrats have won because the Republicans have nominated extremists that their voters reject.
DAVID GREGORY: Do you--
REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: And that's the advantage we will have going into this election.
DAVID GREGORY: Right. But do you have an historic disadvantage? Because a president in his second term, in midterms, historically has a difficult time. You have a president with a low approval rating. And, let's be honest, you have vulnerable Democrats who are, in effect, running against this White House.
What in the ever-loving hell, Gregory? So we no longer consider the common courtesy of letting someone answer a question without interruption a necessary part of your job? That was the rudest interview I've ever seen (of course, it was with a Democratic politician, so I shouldn't be surprised, you mouthpiece for the oligarchy).
It's so revealing that for NBC's main hack, what's most important about the ACA is deciding whether Democrats have a disadvantage in the midterms for spearheading a program that has allowed 8 million people to get insurance? Who cares if some of them have access to health care for the first time? Screw all those people who have suffered from recission, pre-existing conditions, lifetime caps and all those other ways insurance companies have screwed us before Obamacare came into effect. Amirite?
Once again, David Gregory proves he is nothing more than a tool. And a dull one at that.
