(C) Daily Kos This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered. . . . . . . . . . . This travesty of an argument was broadcast to millions on TV. [1] ['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.', 'Backgroundurl Avatar_Large', 'Nickname', 'Joined', 'Created_At', 'Story Count', 'N_Stories', 'Comment Count', 'N_Comments', 'Popular Tags'] Date: 2023-04-09 Generally, I avoid Chuck Todd and his entire project, because I don’t consider him a serious journalist. His viewpoint is seen by some as moderate, but I see a host who is unwilling or unable to challenge his guests when it’s apparent that that needs done. But I thought, filing through my carefully curated YouTube feed and seeing a thumbnail for his roundtable discussion on the Tennessee Three, that maybe it would pay to hear what his audience would be hearing. He does attract middle-of-the-road viewers and voters; and what they hear on his show might well be what they bring back to their homes, jobs, and places of worship. Todd, for his part, was rhetorically wringing his hands. He was nearly, almost beside himself with concern about how the expulsion of Justin Jones and Justin Pearson from the Tennessee State House would look to voters. His guests were veterans of his show, and one response stood out from the rest. Danielle Pletka, senior fellow of the American Enterprise Institute, was the ringer for the conservative/far-right position. Surely Todd knew when he booked her for his show what viewpoint she would be representing. His question to her, after addressing her with a diminutive (“Danni”), was open-ended. Todd: Danni, the premise I started with at the top, I said, yes, this happened in Tennessee. This feels like this has been something that was going to happen somewhere, in the state houses that were getting, first of all, the state legislatures are suddenly more relevant because they’ve had some hot-button issues, particularly abortion and guns. Gerrymandering is more extreme at the state house level. This was Tennessee this time—it could easily have been MIssouri. It could easily have been Florida. It could as easily have been, you know, California in the reverse with the way it is. Or, do you see something else here? So that was Todd’s far-fetched tee-up. California does not figure into this story in any way. But that is how he set up the question for Pletka, who responded thusly: Pletka: No, it’s not that I see something else. But I do see something bigger going on. I’m not sure if it’s the exact same thing that you see. We’ve become a country where, instead of doing something that you should do, you do what you can do. Should they have done this? They’re within their rights. They had a vote; it was a democratic vote, it was done properly. They expelled them. Should they have done that? [half-nodding] I don’t think so. Alvin Bragg. Should he have brought those charges against Donald Trump? Well, he could, and he did, and he did it within his rights. Should he have done it? I’m not sure. (My emphasis.) So here we have presented in front of a home audience as false of an equivalence as I think has come up in this nationwide discussion (other than some folks being even more disingenuous by bringing up January 6 and Donald Trump’s followers storming the Capitol). First, Pletka excuses the egregious acts of the Tennessee supermajority that expelled Jones and Pearson by saying that the vote that they took was technically by the book. She is apparently unfamiliar with Germany in the late ‘30s and how Hitler gained his powers through entirely parliamentary means. There are ways to do things by the book that subvert the book. But then to bring up Alvin Bragg? In this conversation? In this context? It beggars belief. If Donald Trump has committed crimes, then yes, he should be brought in front of a jury and confronted with the evidence against him. That’s how our system of jurisprudence works. That is how justice is meant to commence. So to bring up what Bragg has done, in his official capacity as a district attorney, to uphold the law, with what the Tennessee House supermajority did to subvert the spirit of democratic rule (which is that people elect their representatives and those representatives advocate those constituents’ views) is upside-down. Pletka lives in bizarro world. This swill was served up in front of cameras and broadcast to millions. Many will take that talking point and put it in their back pocket to pull out when they encounter anyone outside of their circle. And, if those encountered are anything like me, they will stop short in their tracks, perhaps even sputter, at the moral bankruptcy of such an argument being put on the table. [END] --- [1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/4/9/2162991/-This-travesty-of-an-argument-was-broadcast-to-millions-on-TV Published and (C) by Daily Kos Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified. via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds: gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/