Bloomberg uses the quirk of phrase that shows he hasn't absorbed the most basic message of the Tea Party movement.

From today's "Meet the Press":

DAVID GREGORY: Do you believe the tax cuts have an actual stimulative effect on the economy?

BLOOMBERG: I don't think there's any question that they put more people -- more money in people's hands, and I think that the public will do a better job with more money in their hands to stimulate the economy than you will do with government programs.

GREGORY: But, Mayor, economists say, especially wealthier Americans don't end up necessarily spending money that they, that they keep through tax cuts. And look at the effect of the Bush tax cuts over a decade... what some have called a decade of, of futility, if you look at the number of jobs created.

BLOOMBERG: OK. But number one, some of these things are not connected, they just happen to have at same -- happened at the same time. And I think the more money you put in people's hands, the more they will spend. And if they don't spend it, they invest it. And investing it is another way of creating jobs.

Did you notice the phrase? He uses it twice. Interestingly, David Gregory takes care to avoid it, so Bloomberg had a good prompt, but he used it anyway.

I realize GOP Senate candidate Ken Buck was nervous on "Meet the Press"...

... but, man, this should go down in the annals of misspeaking:

MR. GREGORY:  [H]ow do you pay for [tax cuts]?

MR. BUCK:  Well, the, the--we pay for it by cutting spending.  We also pay for it by growing government.  When we leave money in the hands of taxpayers, they buy things, they pay taxes, they grow government.  It's not a one for one exchange in the first year, but, but it would be bad, in my view--and, and I--every economist I've talked to has told me that it would be bad in a recession to try to increase taxes....

MR. GREGORY [to the Democrat incumbent, Michael Bennet]:  ... Republican leaders don't agree with what [Buck] just said, which is that you have to pay for tax cuts.  So isn't he--aren't you guys more in line, wouldn't you say?

SEN. BENNET:  Well, I didn't--I actually didn't hear him say that.  I heard him say that you pay for it, and also by growing government you pay for it. I'm not quite sure what that means.  But...

MR. BUCK:  Well, let me explain to you.  Here...

SEN. BENNET:  ...my point is, my point is...

MR. BUCK:  ...you grow government because as people have more money they spend the money and government grows.  When we put people back to work, the government grows, we increase revenue and we decrease unemployment benefits.

SEN. BENNET:  Well I'm definitely not interested in growing government, I can tell you that.

MR. BUCK:  I'm sorry, growing the economy.  I apologize.

MR. GREGORY:  Mm-hmm.

MR. BUCK:  Growing the economy.

MR. GREGORY:  You're talking about growing the economy.

MR. BUCK:  Right.

We have an awful lot of inexperienced public speakers out there these days, about to move into positions of great power....

Let's look closely at what White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said today on "Meet the Press" about Don't Ask Don't Tell.

David Gregory did a halfway decent job with the interview, but he moved on before he really nailed down what Gibbs was really saying. Let's read the transcript:

MR. GREGORY: [I]f the president wants the law to go away, if he wants the ban to go away, why is he still supporting the law in the courts?

MR. GIBBS: Well, let's be clear, the president believes the law is discriminatory, unjust and, quite frankly, you have men and women who are willing to lay down their life for this country. They--those people ought to be able to serve. 

Gibbs doesn't say whether Obama thinks the law is unconstitutional.

The law that was struck down that the president opposes, we, we've got a process. One, the House has passed repeal, and we hope the Senate takes up that repeal quickly. They didn't.

Yes, there's a process for repealing statutes, and there's also a process for challenging statutes in court. If the statute is unconstitutional, the courts should declare it a nullity. If the President think the process is repeal by Congress, then he must think the act is constitutional. Right?

MR. GREGORY: ... Is there faith in the Senate that's misplaced? What does the president do if the Senate doesn't act?

MR. GIBBS: Well, we have a process...

a process...

... in place right now to work with the Pentagon for an orderly and disciplined transition from the law that we have now to an era that "don't ask, don't tell" doesn't exist. And I will say this, David, "don't ask, don't tell" will end under this president. The courts have decided, the legislature has, has--is beginning to decide, and the president is firmly in the place of removing "don't ask, don't tell."

MR. GREGORY: But does he believe it's unconstitutional?

Yes! Gregory asks my question!

MR. GIBBS: You know, David, he thinks it's discriminatory and it's unjust and most of all it harms our national security. It's...

In other words: NO, he does not. Say it!

MR. GREGORY: We know his position, though. But if you keep defending...

MR. GIBBS: ...it's time for the law...

MR. GREGORY: ...it in the courts, how does it end? You can pronounce it dead, but how does it end if you keep backing it in the courts?

MR. GIBBS: Yeah, well, it ends with a vote in Congress. 

What?! So, then you mean the court is wrong and that justifies appealing, right?

It's a law, and the most durable solution is to repeal that law. 

Durable? Rights enforced in courts are not sufficiently durable? Is that your position? Or is it that there is no right at all? Maybe the President is being pragmatic and political about rights, and the point is that when courts find rights that Congress isn't ready for, those rights don't hold up too well and therefore it's better to pretend those rights don't exist at all. Or maybe that's all rights are in the President's eyes — whatever the majority — as manifested by Congress — is willing to respect as it goes along doing everything else it wants to do. Come on, Gibbs! Tell us whether the President thinks there are any rights here!

That's what the president asked the House to do and they did, that's what the president--I think there's enough votes to do it in the Senate. 

Oh, really? What makes you think that?

But, again, we have to get through Republican filibuster.

Which is why you obviously don't have the votes. How do you propose to "get through" the filibuster? Clearly, the judicial case is the easy way to end DADT. Why doesn't the President stop fighting against the rights the court found?

It harms our national security. It's discriminatory, it's time for it to end. 

Then stop fighting for it!

And I will say this, David, again, this president will end "don't ask, don't tell," and I think the courts--you're seeing from the courts that their deciding that "don't ask, don't tell," quite frankly, is--has--it's time for it to end, and that time is coming very soon.

Empty, stammering assertions! Exasperating evasions!

David Gregory never forced Gibbs to say whether the President thinks the act is unconstitutional and never forced him to justify fighting for DADT in court. Unlike his predecessor Tim Russert, Gregory lets the guest filibuster until it's time to move on to the next topic. Gregory is sharp, but he's too nice. Too empathetic. He doesn't push on and on with the questions until the obfuscation is painfully embarrassing.

David Gregory and Chuck Schumer demagogue the Citizens United case on "Meet the Press" today.

If there's one thing you should know about Citizens United v. FEC, it's that it's not about corporate contributions to political candidates. It's about corporations engaging in their own political speech (and spending money in the process). Now, here's today's "Meet the Press" transcript. Chuck Schumer is in the middle of singing the praises of Elena Kagan.

MR. GREGORY:  ... What, what does she mean for the overall direction of the court? ... Is she a liberal or is she a moderate?

SEN. SCHUMER:  I--look, I think she's--she tends to be a moderate when you look at her writings.  But I think that's less important.  When the president called me and asked me what was the number one criteria [sic] for a nominee--this was before he chose Kagan--I said I think it should be somebody who will be in the majority of five rather than the minority of four; someone who'll have the--not only the intellect--and everyone says she's brilliant--but the force of personality, the practicality to try and create coalitions.  I think a lot of us, at least on the Democratic side, were shocked by the Citizens United case, for instance.  And...

MR. GREGORY:  Just remind people, this was about political contributions.

No, it wasn't!

SEN. SCHUMER:  This is the case that said unlimited corporate money could flow into our politics undisclosed in any way....

No, it didn't!

... and it's really--I mean, the First Amendment's important, but so is the sanctity of our political process, so that the average person has a say.  And I was shocked at this.  

And I am shocked at you and Gregory deliberately misleading viewers. Deliberately or ignorantly. I'm guessing deliberately. At least for Schumer. Gregory might be a dunce. I don't know.

Maybe a Kagan on the court could have persuaded a Justice Kennedy that the practical--you know, the abstract notion of First Amendment triumphs everything has a balance, and the balance is the practical effects of that. And my hope would be she would do it, and that's what I'm looking for.

What? I have this TiVo'd, so let me check. That is what he said, word for word. I think there should be another dash, after "triumphs," but it's still damned near incomprehensible. I'm guessing he meant: Justice Kennedy thinks the abstract notion of the First Amendment triumphs, but in fact, abstractions should always be balanced against real world practical effects, and if Kagan were on the Court she might persuade Kennedy to move away from abstractions and focus more on real-world effects.

That's something some people want to say about constitutional interpretation, and that's fine. Say it. But: 1. Say it clearly, and 2. Don't LIE about what the real world effects are.

Does Barack Obama regard our presence in Afghanistan as an "occupation" — like the Soviet occupation?

From today's "Meet the Press" transcript:

DAVID GREGORY: ... We've now been in Afghanistan for eight years.  The Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan after ten years.  Are we committed to this war for an indefinite period of time?  Or do you think, in your mind, is there a deadline for withdrawal?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I don't have a deadline for withdrawal. But I'm certainly not somebody who believes in indefinite occupations of other countries. Keep in mind what happened when I came in. We had been adrift, I think, when it came to our Afghanistan strategy. And what I said was that we are going to do a top to bottom review of what's taking place there....

Note that Obama failed to distance himself from the implication in the question that perhaps what we are doing in Afghanistan is like what the Soviets did. And his introduction of the word "occupations" seemed to let it slip that he actively makes the comparison between us and the Soviet Union. I found that rather disconcerting.

Obama skipped "Meet the Press" because David Gregory is too safe and unchallenging?

Sorry, I don't believe that. I mean, I believe David Gregory is utterly bland:

"Meet the Press" is now the de facto safe show on Sunday morning - "safe," that is, for those being interviewed.

Gregory has been handed perhaps the most important program in television journalism. It's time to start acting like the king who rules wisely yet ruthlessly. Otherwise, his legacy will match that of Garrick Utley or Bill Monroe - moderators who were highly respected but not highly feared.

But I'm not buying the notion that Obama avoided MTP — and opted for Leno — because the show is too easy. I think the show is still too hard.