For Sunday School, I highlighted the so-called interview that Chuck Todd conducted with Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) on Meet the Press. As I noted in the post, Todd has a history of going off the rails when he talks with Johnson, especially since he got so much credit for being 'tough' in a previous interview. In this one, he made himself out to be a fool, in my opinion.
This portion of the interview came after Todd accused Johnson of being one of the arsonists who lit the fire of baseless voter fraud allegations, and Johnson accused Todd of the media being the arsonists because of their bias, and more. Johnson's words are italicized so you can tell them apart.
So you believe -- It's not quackery -- You believe in -- It's not conspiracy theory ---You believe -- It's what's going to be required. Let me ask you this. Then why didn't you hold hearings about the 9/11 truthers? There's plenty of people who thought 9/11 was an inside job. So you're basically saying is -- I mean, Chuck -- if there's enough people who believe a conspiracy theory -- I could have held hearings on all kinds of things. I held hearings on -- If there's enough people who hold -- what I figured was the most relevant issues -- Are you going to do a -- how about the Moon landing -- And obviously this election -- Are you going to hold hearings on that?
And then he said that, while there are all kinds of things he'd like to have hearings on, but that you have to pick your battles.
Right now, we have this election. We've got tens of millions of Americans that think this election was stolen. We need to get the bottom of it. Again, what's explained, we need to explain it, get that off the table. We also have to acknowledge there were some real problems here --
Yup, we do. This interview being one of them.
I didn't offer you a Sunday School Extra Credit las week - I mean, the whole week was an Extra Credit post, wasn't it? And I sure hope you were - and are - paying attention.
There was more than enough fodder carried over from the week before to give us a Trump in Transition post on his 18th phone call to Brad Raffensperger, Georgia's Republican Secretary of State. This one, Raffensperger answered, and legally taped. The audio and transcript were released when the president lied about the nature of the call and Raffensperger fought back.
I had thought about pulling some OrangeVerse out of the transcript, but Trump clearly was in full-blown crime boss mode, so I decided to take it more seriously. Anyway, here's a slice of that, where Trump responds after hearing Raffensperger's first rebuttal.
"Well, Brad." That's what the president said next. "Well, Brad." And then, after talking about other states, and saying "we have all the votes we need," he went back to his favorite theme: he won. He won, and he proved there's way more votes than needed, but he only had to show one more than 11,779 because that's how many he lost by in the bad count from "Well, Brad."
Not only that, but
...what's the difference between winning the election by two votes and winning it by half a million votes. I think I probably did win it by half a million. You know, one of the things that happened, Brad, is we have other people coming in now from Alabama and from South Carolina and from other states, and they’re saying it’s impossible for you to have lost Georgia. We won. You know in Alabama, we set a record, got the highest vote ever. In Georgia, we set a record with a massive amount of votes. And they say it’s not possible to have lost Georgia.
And I could tell you by our rallies. I could tell you by the rally I’m having on Monday night, the place, they already have lines of people standing out front waiting. It’s just not possible to have lost Georgia. It’s not possible. When I heard it was close, I said there’s no way.
He went on, and on, again. But here's where Well, Brad steps up his game.
Well, Mr. President, the challenge that you have is the data you have is wrong.
That's just one of the president's challenges - they are many.
My last post of the week offered up My Middle-aged White Lady Perspective on last Wednesday, and some of what's transpired since. I maintain that what we saw is who we are. The totality of it - not just the incitement and the storming and the violence and the destruction, but also the reactions, the calls for retribution, and excusing and accusing... all of it, whether we like it or not, is who we are.
Here are a couple of reasons why we were all present on Wednesday.
We are without irony (1). We riot, we storm the Capitol, to "take back our country" and do so carrying a pole with two flags - the one bearing the name of a man above the Stars and Stripes. We riot, we storm the Capitol, to "defend our constitution" and support those who are literally trying to bypass the Constitution. We protest things being stolen from us by trying to steal the same thing from others. We lash out at perpetrators - those who do exactly what we want them to do, what we encouraged them to do - and then vote the way they want us to. What is wrong with us?
We are without irony (2). We saw protests, and rioting, around the country last summer; in some places it went on for weeks. We have a hard time separating protests from riots, and we have a hard time being consistent in our distaste for either or both: it all depends on the reason, the voice, the message. We will tolerate 'protests' if we agree with the reason, but tolerate them much less if we don't. We will tolerate rioting, argue that it's OK if a few people lost their businesses because it's for the greater good, but we won't tolerate rioting if the 'good' is not great enough in our eyes. We appreciate 'our rights' but the rights of certain others, less so. Rights red and blue. Protests red and blue. Riots red and blue. Irony red and blue.
Comments are always welcomed on any post. Have at it.
And, that's it - you're up to date on the week that was. I'll be back later for Sunday School, in one form or another.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!