"Some conservatives have been trying to reinvent their image, professing sympathy for the less fortunate. But what their party really believes is that if you’re poor or unemployed, it’s your own fault."

Yep! Don't believe them. Especially Paul Ryan!

You relying on Paul Krugman, who is distorting HuffPo, who is distorting John Boehner. Classic.

Krugman, in typical fashion, is claiming The Speaker thinks the 47% (or is it just the unemployed?) are lazy. I'm actually curious if Krugman even bothered to read Boehner's actual speech and Q&A, or just relied on Huffpo and his own sick imagination.  

Nothing new with Huffpo's MO of distortion, claiming that Boehner is sick of the unemployed  

It was real convenient that neither of your "sources" bothered to link to the original transcript, but how about you matt? Did you bother to look up?  

I'll simply provide a link to the original transcript for anyone interested to see for themselves, Boehner's complete message:

Note: I would have copied the entire speech for all you "lazy" people but it was longer than the 8000 character limit.

-- Modified on 9/22/2014 7:34:15 PM

Krugman and media madders certainly fit! YEP!

It's those pasty white liberal patzers, at it again!!

First of all, if you look closely, it's not a Huffpo article, it's from the New York Times.

Secondly, it's not a news report or article, it's an opinion piece.

Thirdly, you focus on if Boehner's comments and their intent not being accurately portrayed by Krugman, which is a legitimate issue, but what I was agreeing with was that which I put in quotes: ""Some conservatives have been trying to reinvent their image, professing sympathy for the less fortunate. But what their party really believes is that if you’re poor or unemployed, it’s your own fault." And, my conclusion was: "Yep! Don't believe them. Especially Paul Ryan!" That's my opinion, and I have no problem in you disagreeing with it.

-- Modified on 9/22/2014 6:48:46 PM

The great majority of commentators –including Salon, MSNBC, Politico, other NY Times reporters, and the CSM- who addressed the speech likewise concluded that Boehner was implying that the unemployed (not the 47%, that was a play on Romney) are lazy.  To say that Krugman and Huffpo “distorted” his meaning when this is the majority view seems a bit lame.  

 
         True, his comment was not remotely responsive to the question about Paul Ryan’s earned income tax credit increase for childless adults,  but if he was not implying this, then what was the purpose of noting that some of the unemployed have the sick idea that “I really don’ want to work.”  I don’t see you proposing another meaning.  Even Boehner’s spin doctor, who denied the implication,  could not provide an explanation was to what he  meant in what I’ve seen.

        And given that Boehner left work early – the earliest House departure since 1960 - to go on a 7 week paid vacation, giving a speech implying that the unemployed are lazy is insensitive to say the least.

        But you somehow missed the true irony, if not unintentional humor, in his speech. He bemoans a litigation system “where anyone can sue anybody for any reason,” even as  he spearheads a frivolous lawsuit, to be paid by taxpayers, against Mr. Obama for  alleged illegal executive orders.  I certainly agree with him that this kind of lawsuit should be squelched

List all the liberal commentators you like that make claims. Having a majority of liberals that agree does not prove there's no distortion. I haven't read any of those source but what Krugman and Huffpo claimed Boehner said was nowhere close to the many points he made regarding the unemployed and those on government assistance. Even the words "lazy" and "sick" were taken out of context and distorted.  

Frivolous is your opinion of course and he specifically stated litigation was proper for those that had been injured.

It now seems a sure bet you never bothered to look up and read Boehner's actual words, since it's now obvious you didn't even pay much attention to your own linked article. In Krugman's first sentence (tenth word actually) he revealed his own source of information i.e. HuffPo.  

Hmm Let's see. Who was it recently that chastised a P&R member for not clicking on a link inside a linked article? OH YEA. IT WAS YOU. So now it's revealed you don't even read your own.

I never said you were distorting (again it is you not paying attention). I said you were relying on Krugman's distortion of HuffPo's distortion. Do editorials deserve a little extra leeway in their wordsmith skills vs. news articles? Sure, but there are obvious limits. In addition I never commented on Paul Ryan and your views towards him, just your sources of info.

So I suppose you might take issue with my use of "Trifecta" instead of say "Daily Double" since one might infer I meant to include you as the third leg of the distortion, but hey, it a headline and my editorial opinion. By your own assertion I'm due a little literary leeway.

Once again your straining at gnats, and not doing a very good job at it, while swallowing a camel.  

 
"Q: Hi, thank you. My name is Michelle Stern (Vaughn ?). I’m with the Jewish Council for Public Affairs. A few weeks ago or perhaps a month ago, I heard a very compelling speech here by your colleague, Representative Ryan, talking about poverty. And I’m interested in getting your perspective on two points that he made, particularly around expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit for childless adults and the criminal justice reform.

SPEAKER BOEHNER: Well, Paul’s doing some very good work on the issue of poverty and that’s going to get a lot more attention. We’ve got a record number of Americans not working. We’ve got a record number of Americans stuck, if you will. And I think it’s our obligation to help provide the tools for them to use to bring them into the mainstream of American society.

I think this idea that’s been born over the last – maybe out of the economy, over the last couple of years that, you know, I really don’t have to work. You know, I don’t really want to do this; I think I’d just rather sit around. This is a very sick idea for our country.

I grew up – most of you know, I grew up in a family with 11 brothers and sisters. My dad owned a bar. And if you wanted something, you worked for it. Now, I don’t know that was any moment my entire bringing up that I didn’t have some kind of a job, whether throwing newspapers, cutting grass, mopping floors at the bar, tending the bar, dealing with those characters that are walking every day."  

And yes, I think he was saying what he meant, especially since it came out of right field, because his statement didn't address the question at all. And, he was being quite self-righteous about it to boot. I too can never remember not having a job, having to earn my own money for those things that I wanted, but I don't believe, nor do I go around volunteering the opinion that the unemployed are lazy and don't want to work.  I know there are some, many of them suffer from depression and other physical and mental disorders, but to make general statements, like he did, is dishonest, and I believe he said it because that's what his base wants to hear, Just my opinion mind you.  

He wasn't talking about ALL of the unemployed, just those that have the "sick idea" that they'd rather just collect unemployment than work.  

Or are you going to say with a straight face they don't exist

and the “OBVIOUS” distortion, in your view, is that the commentators are implying that he believes ALL of the unemployed are lazy.

        Very interesting take, especially since Boehner’s spokesman disagrees with you, according to the NY Times. He claims Boehner was talking about “workers who have dropped out of the work force after being discouraged by  the inability to find work.”  

       But it sound like the 20 or so “liberal commentators” pretty much got it right, they just failed to add the numerical qualifier.

So we’ll change the headline to “Speaker Boehner believes that some of the  unemployed are lazy.” That should energize the Republican base when elections return.

P.S. Ed says that, the next time you want to help him get out of a jam, no thanks LOL

.Michael Steel, spokesman for the speaker, said Mr. Boehner’s comments referred to workers who have dropped out of the workforce after being discouraged by the inability to find work. “One of the sad realities of the Obama economy is that – month after month – more Americans drop out of the workforce entirely than find work,” he said. “That struggle is one of the big reasons House Republicans have acted on dozens of jobs bills that are being blocked by President Obama and Washington Democrats.”

So you consider it accurate reporting that Boehner is calling ALL unemployed lazy???

Try, for a minute, to stay in context, k?

You dodged my question so I'll repeat it.  

Do you believe there are some amongst the unemployed who find it preferable to collect unemployment to work? Are those who do that lazy?

Simple yes or no will suffice.....

"""So we’ll change the headline to “Speaker Boehner believes that some of the  unemployed are lazy.” That should energize the Republican base when elections return."""

Try putting solutions ahead of policical rhetoric, the job situation might get better!!!

Whether it is true or false that some or all of the unemployed are lazy is irrelevant.  What led to the torrent of criticism is Boehner appeared to endorse the very same view of the poor that helped to sink Romney. Romney according to some commentators stated or implied that 47% of the country was dependent on the government.

        So to hear the Speaker appear to endorse a similar view –regardless of whether it was all, 47%,  or just some percentage – made it appear that the Republicans still have not learned the lesson from the last campaign. That was Krugman’s point, or one of them.

        Of course what Boehner said or implied is literally true. Some percentage of the unemployed are lazy. Duh.  But Boehner neither said all or some in his rambling comment. At the same time, neither Krugman nor Huffpo nor anyone I’ve read interpreted Boehner as saying literally “all.” Like Boehner, they talked about the unemployed generally. I don’t think anyone made that distinction but you. Steele’s comments, in context or not, don’t address this issue at all. He offers a completely different explanation which obviously was damage control spin

A Quadfecta with Reuters being the least guilty of the group since the headline almost certainly belongs to HuffPo.

It's good that you are finally getting around to examining Boehner's actual words but your analysis of the few you homed in on now elevates you too to the level of distortionist. The totality of his speech painted quite the different picture regarding the jobless and those on government assistance; and how the government might assist them in a more lasting and sustainable way. But of course the Quadfecta of distortion will hear nothing of that, instead preferring to focus on his inclusion of the phrase "sick idea". Not content with critiquing him directly or even in context, the distortionists did what they do best.  

I have no desire to listen to more stories from Shahrazad. I achieved my goal of getting Bohner's real words into the record. You are of course free to continue to tell your bedtime stories.

-- Modified on 9/23/2014 7:52:12 PM

I agree with it as I am sure other reasonable and non-partisan people agree. Which are you? Unreasonable, partisan or just your often played devil's advocate? Given the totality of Boehner's remarks it is obvious he was a long way from disparaging the unemployed and others on government assistance, except of course for those that have bought into the "sick idea" that he described.

Richard Cowan isa writer for Reuter's, not the Huffington Post!

Since you don't seem to understand the nature of the Huffington Post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Huffington_Post

Cowan or HuffPo editor Shumaker?

Cowan works for Reuters, also. The article was picked up by Huffpo, not written nor edited by them.

While I did err in assuming Shumaker worked for HuffPo, I was totally correct in saying HuffPo was responsible for the headline.

Here's is the original story as it appeared on Reuter's website:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/18/us-usa-congress-poverty-idUSKBN0HD2OC20140918

Reuters actually had a reasonable headline but you will not find anywhere in the original Reuters post, even the notion of the headline HuffPo used (i.e. John Boehner Is Sick Of Unemployed People. . . ).

It is not at all uncommon for news aggregaters to add their own headlines to stories they cut and paste.