Revisionist History With Chuck Todd
A day late and no dollars short, it's the Sunday Show Rundown!
Today we bring you the idiotic punditry from the last guy rocking a Caesar cut and a Stone Cold Steve Austin goatee combo on national TV, Chuck Todd. It was merely five minutes into NBC's "Meet The Press" when Todd decided to use some revisionist history to do what he does best: "Both Sides" the shit out the news. Watch the clip blow and let's break this nonsense down.
TODD: The last time Democrats faced a similar quandary politically was in 2002. Many chose to vote to authorize a war in Iraq they did not fully believe in because the leaders at the time thought it was good politics in the fall of an election year...
This is true ... if you also ignore the cherry picked intelligence, Colin Powell using his (up to then) unimpeachable credibility for a shameful UN speech , and the lingering unity and goodwill towards George W. Bush in the wake of 9/11 attacks.
But sure, we'll stipulate to it.
TODD: Do they ramp up impeachment? President Trump seems to want that remembering Bill Clinton's 73% Gallup approval rating after he was impeached.
Once again another pundit misunderstanding of the Clinton Affair/Impeachment. Not only does Todd misunderstand the context of this impeachment (primarily the sordid sexual fling with an intern in the White House), why it failed with the public (GOP's faux sanctimony while pursuing hyper-partisan impeachment), and the actual results (GOP held on to the House and Senate after impeachment and sort of, technically, totallydidn'twon the White House as well in 2000). Hell, Democrats didn't gain control of the Senate until January 2001 (with it switching parties in normal circumstance rotation after) or control of the House of Representatives until 2007 (coincidentally Pelosi's first run as Speaker).
So worst case scenario (which is unlikely since already half the public thinks Trump should be impeached, unlike Clinton in 1998), Trump remains president but Democrats gain the Senate AND more seats in the House thus making his presidency a nightmare for him. Best case scenario, Trump is impeached and/or loses the election horribly and is indicted for all the crimes he would have but for a DOJ rule (as Mueller said in his report) while Democrats gain the Senate and keep the House. So... "impeach the motherfucker"?
But impeachment wasn't the only place where Todd lied about history:
TODD: Do they fight him on his terms, trading insult for insult? Last time a Democrat tried that Hillary Clinton wound up calling some of his supporters a basket of deplorables. How'd that work out?
Wait. Is the fuckmook serious? Did he NOT pay attention to Russian meddling, Comey's letter 10 days before election or the fact Hillary Clinton still WON the popular vote by almost 3 million votes ? How about the fact that since then the "deplorables" were proven to exist inside the administration (Miller, Conway, Bannon, Gorka, Kelly, Sarah Sanders, Carson, Patton ... ) and outside of it ( Charlottesville , MAGA bomber, the rise in bigotry/hate/racism/antisemitic crimes ). The same people Clinton called "deplorable" were the same ones Trump called " very fine people ." It wasn't a gaffe, CHUCK.
TODD: Or do they try to do what the president now insists he won't do, conduct the nation's business?
We've seen Trump carry out racists' business, personal business, and GOP donors' business. The House of Representatives have been conducting the nation's business. They have passed multiple substantial bills. But they have been languishing since Mitch McConnell refuses to bring them before the Senate for a vote. You know who knows this? YOU, Chuck Todd, since you actually said it to Rep. Rashida Tlaib when binging up this disingenuous argument later in the episode:
TODD: You hear -- he, he, look -- I have no doubt and Congressman Jeffries ran down, I know you guys have passed other legislation. And you do --
REP. RASHIDA TLAIB: We have.
TODD: --other stuff, other than talking about the president's personal conduct. But [the] point was it's the volume of conversation...
So Todd acknowledges the facts that Democratic representatives are BOTH doing the people's work AND doing their constitutional duty (unlike Trump) to provide oversight BUT he'll continue decrying the "volume"/attention being given to the oversight while ignoring the rest of the work done by the House of Representatives.
It's this decontextualizing of facts and omissions of key factors that allowjournalistspundits like Chuck Todd in the media to create bad narratives to misinform the American people. Like normalizing this administration ignoring congressional subpoenas to the point that THIS happens:
Compare and contrast NYT's treatment of two different famous women facing subpoena. pic.twitter.com/YQTXUfvBLE
— emptywheel (@emptywheel) May 26, 2019
or this:
Our media is a nightmare https: //t.co/EimOoGNdWk
— Erik Loomis (@ErikLoomis) May 27, 2019
Until next time, Have a week!
Wonkette is ad-free and relies ENTIRELY on YOU. If you're able, will you please give us money? Click the thingie, it's right there below!
He's worth it and I am a trained professional. (I learned prep shaving for surgery in my training.)
I've said this before, but Todd can be best understood by his interview with then President Obama. Todd tore into him like a crazed Doberman, demanding he explain how he wrecked the country and betrayed the people. But put a Republican in front of him and all you get is "That's an interesting point of view".